Fidel Castro dead at 90

[Sektor]

Yes, older Cubans who fled Cuba when they were told they wouldn't be allowed to exploit their fellow countrymen in near slavery conditions. Cuban Mafiosos who were told they wouldn't be profiting off of the addictions of their own countrymen anymore. The majority of those who fled Cuba were the scum of Cuban society who had profited heavily off of the large scale abuse under the Batista dictatorship.

I'm just going to point to the single, solitary piece that removes any confusion on landowning Cubans. I've brought it up before, and I feel that in this case it becomes relevant once again. The Mariel Boatlift, which took place in the early 1980s. Batista died of a heart attack in 1973, seven years before the boatlift, and was ousted in 1959, 21 years before the Mariel Boatlift and 21 years since Castro came to power. Many land owners, as you state, must have been disenfranchised sometime during the 70s at the latest. I do admit that Batista was accepted by the American government, but mostly due to private corporations profiting heavily off of Cuba at the time. Much of these people, I would assume, are now deceased and irrelevant in most regard in terms of the timeline we're discussing. Castro ceded power to his brother Raul whom also committed his own atrocities against the Cuban populace, relatively recently in 2008. I'm not saying that the US was right to profit off the back of Batista's rule, but we must place blame where blame is due. Castro wasn't much better than Batista and had many of his own cons. Anyway, during the time of the Mariel Boatlift I doubt very much that the majority of those people actually owned land. It also doesn't excuse Castro from loading the boats with crooks and criminals and shipping them to us. Further more, it also doesn't excuse Castro from shipping people with mental disabilities and hospices to us as well. If Castro was such a great guy, then why send the US mental health patients? Wouldn't he want to help his fellow Cubans? I feel that the Mariel Boatlift is the most common and widely known hole in the fence that people can see through. Castro was not a benevolent creature, and the Cubans celebrating his death in the US were not all landholders and criminals. That's not true and statistically impossible. Why then, are non-landowning Cubans celebrating his death? They are not all 3rd and 4th generation Cubans celebrating. A lot of these people are in their 40s, 50s and 60s putting them at the right age for stepping off that boat. Why'd they all leave? If Cuba was all well and good, they would have rather stayed then, right? Discounting them discounts Castro's atrocities and his crimes.

I also wouldn't give much credence to the papacy either. Considering they didn't acknowledge the Holocaust until 1998 I'd be wary of their credibility. This is also the same organization that held somewhere upwards of 60% of all their priests were pedophiles. I don't like the Papacy much and don't see why anyone particularly would. They gave the okay 'nothing is wrong here' go ahead to Adolf and denied it for decades, then went off to shuffle around their kiddie rapists and molesters until people actually started listening to insiders and victims sometime during the mid 00's. I wouldn't trust or place much faith in the Papacy, but that's another issue altogether and a quite anal one at that.

Hey, I love A.D 2000. I'd actually look more into the shooting statistical analysis done by the DOJ, the FBI and the DOD before going through with those claims. Unarmed? Doesn't mean much. Have you ever been in a fist fight. Hurts to get hit in the face and it takes only a couple hits (one in some cases) to knock someone out cold. A lot of these police shootings that our media is exporting is . . . much on the biased side and don't use data collected by the DOJ nor the FBI. Even if and when they do, they don't weigh it properly and skew the numbers out of proportion or fail to mention other facts that actually matter pertaining to their 'evil cops'. It's actually roughly 45% to 60% more likely that a cop will be killed by a civilian than the other way 'round. I'd put money down no one told you that before. This statistic can be gleaned, again, from the DOJ and the FBI if you're interested.

 

[Hands]

I'm just going to point to the single, solitary piece that removes any confusion on landowning Cubans. I've brought it up before, and I feel that in this case it becomes relevant once again. The Mariel Boatlift, which took place in the early 1980s. Batista died of a heart attack in 1973, seven years before the boatlift, and was ousted in 1959, 21 years before the Mariel Boatlift and 21 years since Castro came to power. Many land owners, as you state, must have been disenfranchised sometime during the 70s at the latest. I do admit that Batista was accepted by the American government, but mostly due to private corporations profiting heavily off of Cuba at the time. Much of these people, I would assume, are now deceased and irrelevant in most regard in terms of the timeline we're discussing. Castro ceded power to his brother Raul whom also committed his own atrocities against the Cuban populace, relatively recently in 2008. I'm not saying that the US was right to profit off the back of Batista's rule, but we must place blame where blame is due. Castro wasn't much better than Batista and had many of his own cons. Anyway, during the time of the Mariel Boatlift I doubt very much that the majority of those people actually owned land. It also doesn't excuse Castro from loading the boats with crooks and criminals and shipping them to us. Further more, it also doesn't excuse Castro from shipping people with mental disabilities and hospices to us as well. If Castro was such a great guy, then why send the US mental health patients? Wouldn't he want to help his fellow Cubans? I feel that the Mariel Boatlift is the most common and widely known hole in the fence that people can see through. Castro was not a benevolent creature, and the Cubans celebrating his death in the US were not all landholders and criminals. That's not true and statistically impossible. Why then, are non-landowning Cubans celebrating his death? They are not all 3rd and 4th generation Cubans celebrating. A lot of these people are in their 40s, 50s and 60s putting them at the right age for stepping off that boat. Why'd they all leave? If Cuba was all well and good, they would have rather stayed then, right? Discounting them discounts Castro's atrocities and his crimes.

You keep mentioning the Boatlift as if Castro forced people onto those boats. He said the harbour was open to anyone wishing to leave, providing they secured their own transport (either boats they owned, rented, or US vessels). Castro didn't force anybody to go. A lot of those who left were members if the families that the land barons left behind.

Castro was far from a saint. His punishment of most Political dissidents (CIA spies and saboteurs excluded) was unacceptable and has no place in a true socialist society. No one on our side is calling Castro an angel, we accept he was an incredibly flawed leader who was involved in some nasty antics. The difference is we don't choose to ignore the mitigating factors that led to such a controversial leadership. Nearly 700 attempts on his life by a foreign Govt. who had tried to mercilessly starve the people of his country via the most oppressive and crippling trade embargo in modern history whilst dealing with constant pressure from sleeper cells and US funded and trained terrorists is bound to have a negative effect on your ability to lead.

You ask why they all left, but 100,000 odd people out of 11million is less than 1% of the population, Roughly 4million people left America permanently between 2000 and 2014. That's around 285,000 per year give or take. If America is such a good country why did they leave? Various reasons undoubtedly, many for economic pursuits. Why would you believe it to be different with the Cubans?

This rhetoric can't hold up unless context is completely removed. The narrative presented that swathes of criminals assembled by Castro were sent to the US is, at best, wild speculation. The reality is that Castro told Cubans they could leave via the harbour if they wanted to go to the US but denied them any Cuban Govt. support, he instead told them they'd have to secure their own travel. When he told them this, less than 1% of the population left. America had an open door policy for Cubans back then in their ongoing socio-economic war against Cuba. Once again, America made her own mess with this one.

I also wouldn't give much credence to the papacy either. Considering they didn't acknowledge the Holocaust until 1998 I'd be wary of their credibility. This is also the same organization that held somewhere upwards of 60% of all their priests were pedophiles. I don't like the Papacy much and don't see why anyone particularly would. They gave the okay 'nothing is wrong here' go ahead to Adolf and denied it for decades, then went off to shuffle around their kiddie rapists and molesters until people actually started listening to insiders and victims sometime during the mid 00's. I wouldn't trust or place much faith in the Papacy, but that's another issue altogether and a quite anal one at that.

Well whilst I really have no love for the Vatican as an institution, it's incorrect to suggest that Pope Francis supports paedophilia, denies the holocaust or backed Hitler. Pope Francis is fairly liberal, and follows the teachings of Jesus far more than any prior modern pope. Remember, this is the man who, much to the chagrin of the Vatican, invited homeless people to dine with him on his birthday, washed the feet of tired refugees and who outright said the church should stop punishing and condemning people for abortions because the reality is that most already feel bad enough after one.

Pope Pius was heavily involved in several plots to kill Hitler during his reign, including the most famous of them, Valkyrie. So whilst the church itself may have been complacent, the Pope was not.

Hey, I love A.D 2000. I'd actually look more into the shooting statistical analysis done by the DOJ, the FBI and the DOD before going through with those claims.

I have.

Unarmed? Doesn't mean much.

It means everything when it comes to acceptable use of force.

Have you ever been in a fist fight. Hurts to get hit in the face and it takes only a couple hits (one in some cases) to knock someone out cold.

Yeah, and here's what i didn't do. i didn't pull out a glock and fire 12 shots into a public street at someone after the altercation was over. Although it's neither here nor there what I'd do or if I've had fights, I'm not a trained officer of the law with what is essentially a licence to kill.

A lot of these police shootings that our media is exporting is . . . much on the biased side and don't use data collected by the DOJ nor the FBI. Even if and when they do, they don't weigh it properly and skew the numbers out of proportion or fail to mention other facts that actually matter pertaining to their 'evil cops'. It's actually roughly 45% to 60% more likely that a cop will be killed by a civilian than the other way 'round. I'd put money down no one told you that before. This statistic can be gleaned, again, from the DOJ and the FBI if you're interested.

Well you'd be wasting your money friend. Of course cops are more likely to be killed by a civilian than a civilian killed by a cop. There's a lot less cops. If you had 300 cops and 300,000 civilians and 30,000 civilians were killed by cops but only 36 cops were killed by civilians, you would still have more cops statistically killed by civilians than the other way around. Although we're starting to veer off topic here. I'll happily continue discussing Police brutality and the evils of the Vatican via PM or VM if you want to :)