cj#487> re: Cuba


Richard Moore

Date: Sat, 2 Mar 1996
Sender: •••@••.••• (John Lowry)
Subject: Re: cj#484> re: Cuba & saber rattling

I have a question -- regarding the gulf war.  I know of no one else who
believes as I do, that Saddam was completely justified in his actions.  I
have no special source of information, yet I am aware that the Kwaitis were
taking more than their share of oil from a common well and would not stop,
even when asked repeatedly to please stop taking Iraqui oil.  What else was
he [Saddadm] to do?  Why does no one else see that side?

Date: Tue, 5 Mar 1996
Sender: •••@••.•••
Subject: Re: cj#480> re: Cuba & saber rattling

>        War             Incident
>        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>        Mexican         border conflict in Texas (caused by belligerent U.S.
>                        scouting parties)
>        Civil           Fort Sumter shelling
>        WWII            Pearl Harbor (forced by FDR oil blockade)
>        Vietnam         Gulf of Tonkin (provocative U.S. Navy maneouvers)
>        Grenada         an assassination (facilitated by the CIA)
>        Panama          shooting of a GI (wandering where it was inevitable)
>        Iraq            invasion of Kuwait (invited by Sec'y State)

How 'bout the capture of the 'Liberty' - one of J. Hancock's smuggling fleet
as a start to the 1776 thing.

BTW - love your stuff

Terry Moran
http://members.aol.com/mindbets/     The Southern Nevada Mensa Newsletter
http://members.aol.com/sssssig/       The Sinister Sliding Stones Studies Sig



        Indeed, or the "Boston Massacre" -- which may be the grand-daddy
incident-archtype of them them all.  The crowd was stirred up by
rabble-rousing rhetoric, the redcoats responded as overwhelmed soldiers
frequently do, and the press sensationalized the event beyond all
proportion.  It created an instant mobilization-consciousness, establishing
a paradigm which has been regularly invoked ever since.


Date:         Fri, 1 Mar 1996
From:         Lisa Pease <•••@••.•••>
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
Subject:      Crossette, Cuba, & the Times: CIA Propaganda

The February 28 New York Times story on the downing of the "civilian"
jets by the Cubans was written by Barbara Crossette. The piece viciously
maligns the Cuban government for shooting down the planes, even though
accompanying transcripts, printed in the same edition of the Times, show
that her claim that the Cubans had plenty of time to warn off the Cessna
pilots is misleading: the transcripts show the Cubans DID make a strong
warning to the pilots, who vowed they were continuing on to Havana and
were aware of the danger. Crossette also continues the demonstrably false
line that Basulto was a pacifist, when his history shows, among other
anti-Castro activities, participated in terrorist bombing in Havana, and
had recently performed a leafleting run over the city. As the Cubans said,
if he could drop leaflets, he could drop other things as well.

So, the question becomes, how could Crossette be so misleading?

Sidebar from LIES OF OUR TIMES, June 1994, page 17:

Crossette and the Coup

One can only wonder why the New York Times, through Barbara Crossette,
has chosen to tell the truth about conditions in Grenada (albeit with a
lot of incorrect details). The last time that happened was quite
propheticindeed so prophetic that many supporters of the Bishop
government wondered about Crossette's ties to U.S. intelligence.

On August 7, 1983, the Times ran a front-page Crossette article designed
mostly to play on the racist fears of U.S. conservatives and the
anti-communist preoccupations of U.S. liberals. The article falsely
portrayed Bishop as a wild-eyed radical intent on turning Grenada over to
the Soviets and the Cubans. But there was one shock: Crossette said,
"there are rumors of a rift between the Coards and Mr. Bishop."
Bernard Coard was Deputy Prime Minister, and Phyllis Coard was head of
the National Women's Organization. Almost no one outside the top
leadership of Bishop's New Jewel Movement knew that there was trouble at
the highest levels of the country's political structure. The Cubans did
not know; the Soviets did not know; none of the many supporters of
Grenada in the progressive movement in the United States knew. Somehow,
Barbara Crossette knew.

Two months later, the Coards led the coup against Bishop; several days
later, Bishop and his key aides were assassinated; a few days later, the
U.S. invaded. (For a full review of the U.S. Campaign against the Bishop
government, see Ellen Ray and Bill Schaap, "U.S. Crushes Caribbean
Jewel," CovertAction Information Bulletin, Winter 1984, p. 3.)
--William H. Schaap

End quote.

The sidebar appears in an article starting on page 16 , highly (and
justly) critical of Crossette's New York Times article of March 13, 1994.

Lisa Pease
"If you can't get the truth about the past, how can you expect to get the
truth about the present?"
                            - Jerry Brown, We The People talk show 1/11/96

Date:         Sun, 3 Mar 1996
From: Hank Roth <•••@••.•••>
Subject:      960311-Castro speaks truth about U.S.
To: Multiple recipients of list PNEWS-L <•••@••.•••>

/* Written  3:10 PM  Mar  1, 1996 by plink in igc:militant.news */
/* ---------- "960311-Castro speaks truth about U." ---------- */
Title: 960311-60--Castro Speaks Truth On U.S. Aggression Against Cuba
from the Militant, vol.60/no.10                         March 11, 1996

   Invasions of Cuban airspace by U.S.-based
counterrevolutionaries are nothing new. They began shortly
after the January 1959 triumph of the revolution that
overthrew the U.S.-backed dictatorship of Fulgencio Batista
and brought a government of workers and peasants to power.
   In a speech to the United Nations General Assembly Sept.
26, 1960, Cuban president Fidel Castro documented the
accelerating U.S. political, economic, and military
aggression at the time, including deadly assaults on Cuban
territory by air.
   Printed below are excerpts from that speech by Castro.
The entire text of the Cuban president's UN address appears
in To Speak the Truth: Why Washington's Cold War Against Cuba
Doesn't End (see ad on page 9). This book, published by
Pathfinder Press, is a collection of speeches by Castro and
Ernesto Che Guevara at the United Nations.
   The following excerpt is copyright   Pathfinder Press and
is reprinted with permission.

   One afternoon an airplane coming from the north flew over
one of our sugar mills and dropped a bomb. This was a strange
and unheard-of event, but we knew full well where that plane
came from. On another afternoon another plane flew over our
sugarcane fields and dropped a few incendiary bombs. These
events, which began sporadically, continued systematically.(1)
   One afternoon, while a number of U.S. tourist agents were
visiting Cuba as part of an effort by the revolutionary
government to promote tourism as a source of the nation's
income, a U.S.-built plane - one of those used in the Second
World War - flew over Havana, dropping pamphlets and a few
hand grenades. Naturally some antiaircraft guns went into
action. The result was more than forty victims, between the
grenades dropped by the plane and the antiaircraft fire
since, as you know, some of the shells explode on contact. As
I said, the result was more than forty victims. These
included children with their entrails torn out, and old men
and old women.(2)
   This was not the first time. No, young girls and boys,
the elderly, men and women, were often killed in the villages
of Cuba by U.S. bombs supplied to the dictator Batista.
   On another occasion, eighty workers were killed in a
mysterious explosion - too mysterious - aboard a ship
bringing Belgian weapons into our country. This occurred
following great efforts by the U.S. government to prevent the
Belgian government from selling us weapons.(3)
   There have been dozens of victims in the war: eighty
families were left orphaned by that explosion; forty victims
of an airplane calmly flying over our territory. The U.S.
authorities denied that these planes took off from U.S.
territory. But the plane was sitting right there in its
hangar. One of our magazines published a photograph of this
plane in its hangar, and then the U.S. authorities seized the
plane. Then, of course, an account of the affair was issued
to the effect that this was not very important and that the
victims had not died from the bombs but from the antiaircraft
fire. Meanwhile those responsible for this crime were
wandering about peacefully in the United States, where they
were not even prevented from continuing their acts of
   I take this opportunity to tell His Excellency, the
representative of the United States, that there are many
mothers in Cuba who are still waiting to receive a telegram
of condolence for the children murdered by U.S. bombs.
   The planes came and went. There was no proof - although
you must define what you mean by proof. The plane was right
there, photographed and seized. Yet we were told this plane
had not dropped any bombs; it is not known how the U.S.
authorities were so well informed. Pirate aircraft continued
to fly over our territory dropping incendiary bombs. Millions
upon millions of pesos were lost in the burning of sugarcane
fields. Many working people who saw this wealth destroyed, a
wealth that was now theirs, were themselves burned or wounded
in the struggle against the persistent and tenacious bombings
by these pirate aircraft.
   Then one day, while flying over one of our sugar mills, a
plane blew up when its bomb exploded, and the revolutionary
government had the opportunity of gathering the remains of
the pilot. It was in fact a U.S. pilot, whose papers were
found, and it was a U.S. plane and we found all the proofs
about the airfield from which he had taken off. That plane
had passed over two bases in the United States.(4)
   Now it was a case that could not be denied; it was clear
the plane had come from the United States. This time, in view
of the irrefutable proof, the U.S. government did give an
explanation to the Cuban government. Its conduct in this case
was not the same as in the U-2 case.(5) When it was proved that
the planes were coming from the United States, the U.S.
government did not proclaim its right to burn our cane
fields. On this occasion, the U.S. government apologized, and
said it was sorry. Well, we were lucky, after all, because
after the U-2 incident the U.S. government did not even
apologize; it proclaimed its right to fly over Soviet
territory. Too bad for the Soviets! [Applause]
   But we do not have many antiaircraft batteries and the
planes continued to come until the sugar harvest was over.
When there was no more sugarcane, the bombings stopped. We
were the only country in the world to suffer this harassment,
although I do recall that at the time of his visit to Cuba
President Sukarno [of Indonesia] told us that we were not the
only ones, that they too had problems with U.S. planes flying
over their territory. I don't know if I've committed an
indiscretion here; I don't expect so.
   The fact of the matter is that at least in this peaceful
hemisphere, we were the one country that, without being at
war with anyone, had to stand the constant attack of pirate
planes. How could those planes come and go from U.S.
territory with impunity?
   We invite the delegates here to ponder this, and we also
invite the people of the United States - if by chance they
have the opportunity of knowing the facts being discussed
here - to ponder this matter. Because according to the
statements of the U.S. government itself, U.S. territory is
completely protected against any air incursion, and U.S. air
defenses are infallible. It is said that the air defenses of
the world they call "free" - because, so far as we are
concerned, we became free on Jan. 1, 1959 - are impregnable.
   If this is the case, how is it that planes - and I'm not
talking about supersonic planes, but simple propeller planes
flying barely 150 miles an hour - how is it that these planes
are able to come and go from U.S. territory at will? How can
they go through two bases and come back over these two same
bases without the U.S. government even being aware that these
planes are coming and going from their territory?
   It means one of two things. Either the U.S. government is
lying to the U.S. people and the United States is defenseless
against aerial incursions, or the U.S. government was an
accomplice in these aerial incursions. [Applause]

   1. The bombing of Cuban sugar mills and cane fields by
planes taking off from the United States began in October
   2. The incident Castro is describing took place on October
21, 1959. In the attack two were killed and forty-seven
   3. On March 4, 1960, the French ship La Coubre, bringing
Belgian munitions, blew up in the Havana harbor, killing
eighty-one people.
   4. On February 18, 1960, a plane blew up while attempting
to bomb a Cuban sugar mill. The body of pilot Robert Ellis
Frost, a U.S. citizen, was recovered in the wreckage.
   5. On May 1, 1960, a U.S. U-2 spy plane was shot down over
the Soviet Union and the pilot captured. The plane was more
than 1,200 miles inside Soviet territory.

To get an introductory 12-week subscription to the Militant
in the U.S., send $10 US to: The Militant, 410 West Street,
New York, NY 10014.
For subscription rates to other countries, send e-mail to
•••@••.••• or write to the above address.


 Posted by Richard K. Moore  -  •••@••.•••  -  Wexford, Ireland
   Cyber-Rights:  http://www.cpsr.org/cpsr/nii/cyber-rights/
   CyberJournal:  (WWW or FTP) --> ftp://ftp.iol.ie/users/rkmoore
 Materials may be reposted in their _entirety_ for non-commercial use.


ekbonus bahis forum linkegit.com