Talk:Fidel Castro

From Conservapedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Quetzalcoatl (Talk | contribs) at 12:56, 12 July 2010. It may differ significantly from current revision.

Jump to: navigation, search

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


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)

Castro Dead?

Can we see some hard evidence suggesting this? Just because he is keeping to himself dosn't mean he has died. He is still the Secretary of the communist party--WilliamMc 12:37, 29 December 2009 (EST)

Maybe Fidel Castro is alive and even editing this site!!!--Andy Schlafly 13:08, 29 December 2009 (EST)
Speculation is not necessary here as Castro is no longer running the show. His brother Raul Castro was innagurated as acting President in July 2006. Until such evidence is shown speculation of his death is ultimately baseless. Please do not add any. This is not a gossip site after all. --Matthew2208 16:02, 29 December 2009 (EST)
Matthew, you're clueless here. When someone is missing for 3.5 years and there is an incentive to lie about his fate, then he's presumptively dead. Communists don't define the truth. God does.--Andy Schlafly 20:01, 29 December 2009 (EST)
In October Castro allegedly met with the leader of Cyprus and a Chinese official. Here is a supposed photo of Castro with Wu Bangguo. It's released by the Cuban state media, but apparently the (obviously liberal) AP found it sufficiently convincing as to endorse it.
Obviously it's possible that the leader of Cyprus (and at least three other leaders who have allegedly met him since July) was paid off to lie about this and the photo is of a lookalike (or older). But true or false, matters are perhaps not quite so simple as Fidel simply disappearing for the last few years, and we should carefully consider the evidence. --JimR 20:13, 29 December 2009 (EST)
Fidel, like many dictators, had body and face doubles, like the one we famously killed of Saddam in the opening salvo of the Iraq invasion. It seems far more likely to me that they just passed a double off as Castro than that they bribed a foreign head of state. JacobB 20:16, 29 December 2009 (EST)
Liberal denial illustrates its double standard. Natalie Holloway has been missing for a period comparable to Fidel Castro's absence, and no one would deny the likelihood that she is dead. It doesn't matter what the authorities might say. But no liberal will admit that Castro is likely dead also.--Andy Schlafly 09:31, 30 December 2009 (EST)
Well, the difference there is that Natalie Holloway disappeared, whereas Castro hasn't been seen in public for years. By that logic Macaulay Culkin is also dead. But seriously, Castro certainly could be dead, but that doesn't mean he is. If I had to guess, I'd say he's not. I think if he had died they would have staged an enormous funeral for him with all sorts of parades, teeming with propaganda. Dictators love that stuff. But that's just my opinion. DanL 12:08, 30 December 2009 (EST)

I just noticed that this made "Liberal Denial." DanL seems to make a good point Andy. I guess what I don't see is:

  • a) What motivation the Cubans would have to lie about Castro being dead and
  • b) What motivation liberals would have to insist that Castro is alive if he really were dead.
    It seems like a really obscure point at best. Personally, I'm assuming that Castro is alive for the same reason everyone else does: dictators don't just pass away unnoticed. Or is there a historical precedent I'm missing? JDWpianist 12:25, 30 December 2009 (EST)

Mr. Schlafly, I'm confused about whether you're saying you know he's dead or that you presume he's dead based on not being sighted in public. I just checked the news and there are quite a few references to him making statements recently. Are you saying someone is lying? If so, to what end? And the Holloway story is different in that she disappeared. You just haven't seen Castro lately. Others appear to have because they recorded his statements. Hectoruribe 12:38, 30 December 2009 (EST)

Motivation would primarily to conceal the power struggle while the fascists decide who's going to be the new dictator. Communists lie about everything else - particularly mass murder (see also genocide). The kind of political power that "comes out of the barrel of a gun" rather than the curtains of a voting booth is well disposed to deception. --Ed Poor Talk 14:22, 30 December 2009 (EST)

DanL and JDW seem to think that if a brutal communist regime claims someone is alive, then we should take that at face value even though he hasn't been seen publicly in 3.5 years. But they don't answer the question of why they believe communists when, for example, they probably wouldn't believe a similar claim that another missing person (such as Natalie Holloway) is still alive. As each day goes by without a public appearance by Fidel Castro or credible independent verification (e.g., a meeting with Republican congressmen), the chance Fidel Castro is still alive decreases. How much longer do DanL and JDW require before admitting that the chance has dropped to less than 50%? After 3.5 more years? 10 more years?
Communists lie about everything. There's little reason to believe that the Russian dictator Yuri Andropov died when the communists said he did, given the long period when no one could confirm he was still alive either.--Andy Schlafly 15:20, 30 December 2009 (EST)
It's not just Cubans who say he's alive. Castro himself wrote several articles in the last few months and the president of Argentina met with him in Cuba. Do you think he's dead because you believe communists are in general liars? Hectoruribe 15:36, 30 December 2009 (EST)
Well if you have doubts, feel free to fly down to Havana and see him for yourself. And while you're there, see about getting the right to criticize Castro's government...or the right to free speech in general, or the right to assemble freely with like-minded persons, or the right to attend the church of your choice, or the right to possess a gun just in case the government gets a tad-tyrannical. Karajou 15:55, 30 December 2009 (EST)
(edit conflict) Wow, Hector, that seals the case ... Castro supposedly wrote some articles! Of course that proves nothing.
Castro was a communist dictator. He reveled in worship of him by the public. After he's been missing for a period of time from self-serving public events, a period that started with a life-threatening medical condition and complex surgery, the chance that he is still alive decreases with each passing day. The liberal denial of this is remarkable.
Perhaps the closure by liberals will come when the New York Times finally runs a front page article asking these questions. Then, as soon as the communists can arrange it without being too obvious, they will announce that Castro just passed away.--Andy Schlafly 16:00, 30 December 2009 (EST)
I don't really care either way since I don't have a horse in this race. If you'll notice, I'm just asking you questions, not taking a position one way or the other, so I'm not in liberal denial, whatever that is. I'm just concerned that you're not addressing that the president of Argentina met with him earlier this year. Hugo Chavez met with him more recently. Are these men liars? Hectoruribe 16:03, 30 December 2009 (EST)
Well, I guess your statement "I don't really care either way" constitutes the bonafide end of your argument. Karajou 16:07, 30 December 2009 (EST)
I'm sorry I came off as flippant there. I don't care whether he's alive or dead, to be honest, but I do care that the article reflect the truth instead of speculation. Thanks for pointing out my error. Hectoruribe 16:14, 30 December 2009 (EST)
What you need to do is to read the Bible as you said you try to do on your user page, specifically Revelation 3:14-18; it tells of what Jesus will do to a church that "doesn't really care one way or the other":
And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God; I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth. Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked: I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see.
Karajou 16:19, 30 December 2009 (EST)
Of course I don't take anything Communist regimes say at face value. They do indeed lie more than they tell the truth. Still I don't see the motivation in this case, as Castro is no longer even the leader, thus the power struggles Ed mentioned wouldn't be in play. Furthermore, I stand by my point. Dictators don't die unnoticed and unanounced: Stalin died and a massive funeral was organized overnight. Mao died and the same happened. Kim Il Sung, Hitler, you name it, no one kept their deaths a secret, because there was no reason to put off a big dramatic funeral and public outpouring of love for the Dear Leader. Can you name a single instance where a dictator died and his death was covered up?
Not to mention, no one's touched my second question. What motivation would liberals have to deny that a dictator has died? To put it nicely, this whole issue sounds like shadow-boxing to me. JDWpianist 16:40, 30 December 2009 (EST)
I do not know about Fidel Castro, however in history there were cases in which a leader died and a weaker leader took over, pretending to serve the interests of the previous leader. If Raul Castro is unpopular, maybe he pretends his brother is alive to use his power? I am not saying that this happened, but it is not without precedent.--Wuhao1911 16:59, 30 December 2009 (EST)
Well, apparently he's alive. He's made a public reappearance a couple of days ago. He looks quite ill, though. --MarcoT2 14:02, 12 July 2010 (EDT)
And he was wearing a Nike jacket. Where is his hate to "American Imperialism"? This is liberal hypocrisy at its worst. I bet most cubans are not even allowed to buy one of those jackets.--Quetzalcoatl 14:56, 12 July 2010 (EDT)