Talk:Luis Posada Carriles/Archive 2

"terrorist" campaigns

Regardless of what I think regarding whether or not Posada is a terrorist, I think it's inappropriate for WP to use that word except under attribution (a campaign that Cuba calls terrorist), esp. not in the first sentence. For more on why, see Wikipedia:Words to avoid. DanKeshet 00:51, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

I too strongly oppose describing groups or individuals as terrorists in the editorial voice because it is a highly subjective matter. However, I think is is acceptable to label an act terrorism. Most people agree that blowing up an airplane or whatever is a terrorist act, whoever does it. This is the approach we've used in Shining Path for example. -- Viajero | Talk 09:14, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree. So we should revert the Category reference here? Or is this change leading toward elimination of the category "terrorist"? DJ Silverfish 14:47, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

sigh... those damn categories. We just voted to get rid of Category:Terrorist organizations. Now we are voting on its subcategories which should have been deleted with the parent category. (see: Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_May_20, please vote). Category:Terrorists will have to be listed as well. -- Viajero | Talk 15:58, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

re: Is he a terrorist? American definition - "The calculated use of violence or threat of violence to attain goals that are political, religious or ideological in nature...through intimidation, coercion or instilling fear." British definition - "Terrorism is the use, or threat, of action which is violent, damaging or disrupting, and is intended to influence the government or intimidate the public and is for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause." -- LamontCranston 13:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

The word "terrorist" describes a person's motive, not their action. Blowing up a plane full of civilians is not necessarily an act of terrorism. If Wikipedia is to be neutral, it can not call people terrorists. Someone who bombs something or someone is a bomber, not a terrorist. Someone who shoots up a convoy or car with a machine gun is a gunner. Someone who hijacks a plane and flies it into a building is a hijacker committing an attack. It doesn't pander to their cause, it doesn't aid or comfort them, it's just a statement of fact. Unless you can get inside someone's head and know *exactly* why they did what they did, "terrorism" is a guess. Dave420 04:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Interesting Article

An interesting article was published today about Carriles, Bosch, and related topics. See: [1]

Ze miguel 09:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Canada

As reported on CBC Evening News (nothing yet on their website), the US has sounded out Canada as a possible place to extradite Carriles, and were refused. Someone may want to add this to the article. --T. Mazzei 02:18, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

How to prove facts?

I have provided two links to "evidence" supplied by the official Cuban news agency Granma. These links are clearly contradictory, in that they show a gun and ammunition that, by all reports, doesn't fit that gun. My question is, how can I certify that the links were as I provided? What if the Cuban government changes the pictures in the links I provided? What if tomorrow, May 14 2007, the Cuban Granma site shows 7.62 millimeter ammunition where today, May 13, they show a picture of 5.56 millimeter rounds?

• Please remember to sign your posts here with ~~~~. Also, newer posts go on the bottom of this page, not the top.

If you add to your references that it was accessed on May 13, 2007, then that implies that anyone who accesses it later might see something different.

Secondly, your post is non informative. Cuba, in that reference, is saying that Santiago Alvarez Fernández Magriñá purchased AK-47s and gave one to Ihosvani Suris de la Torre to use against Cuba. However, no subject in this wikipedia article mentions that. Even though I see no mention of Posada there all, I'm sure Posada himself would brag about supplying Cuban "patriots" with weapons to fight Castro, the only thing he might dispute is the accusation of killing civilians with bombs. You said, "the evidence presented by the Cuban government against Posada" Nowhere in the Wikipedia article can I see where it is mentioned that Cuba accuses Posada of supplying anyone with AK-47s.

Last point, there are many, many variants of the AK-47, some of them use 5.56mm rounds.

As you might have noticed, this article has a tag on the top that says, "The neutrality of this article is disputed.", therefore, I respectfully suggest that before you post anything that might be of questionable use and/or bias that you make sure that it is both solidly factual and clearly relevant to the issues discussed. I will give you time to alter or remove your addition to conform to Wikipedia's strict rules on Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Thank you. Fanra 09:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• Sorry about putting the comment at the top, my mistake.

I added two more references to the Granma Cuban page. The two photographs that I linked are part of a series of 17 images purported to be evidence against Posada. In that context, it is irrelevant what was Posada's own opinion of those facts, an NPOV examination should be concerned solely on whether the evidence is consistent or not.

I checked the photograph of the AK-47 rifle against the photograph in pages 136 and 137 of the book "An Illustrated Guide to Weapons of the Modern Soviet Union Ground Forces", ed. Ray Bonds, published in 1981 by Salamander Books, ISBN 086101 115 5. The gun presented in the Cuban photograph is consistent in every detail that can be seen in the image with the Soviet version, except for the folding metal stock that is missing.

Although I cannot show an image of every copy that was made of the AK-47 that uses NATO ammunition, it is unlikely that a derivative version with a different caliber would be so similar to the original. It is a plausible assumption that the rifle shown is not compatible with the ammunition they presented.

When someone has such a long list of accusations against him as Posada Carriles has, it should not be difficult to find 17 pieces of evidence that are self-consistent. Therefore the internal discrepancies in the data presented by the Cuban government seem to indicate that some of the accusations against Posada may not be valid.vhilden2007/05/14 12:21 UTC

• There are a lot of things I can reply. I'll hold some of them in reserve, so please understand if I bring them back later. Let's start with just one.

"it is unlikely" - "is a plausible assumption" - Not very good words for an argument. What is even worse is that the article itself doesn't even say that but instead, "is clearly". Somehow, plausible became clearly.

But the most telling argument against your "assumption" is that if Cuban police wished to frame Posada I find it "unlikely" that they wouldn't know what ammo a rifle in their possession uses and just take a photo of 7.62mm ammo and use that. It doesn't make sense that they would use a photo of 5.56mm if the rifle doesn't use it. That is a far more "plausible assumption". Fanra 22:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Dubious Assertion

I am going to remove the following:

"Critics of this kind of diplomacy note that not only has Cuba provided to sanctuary to a wide array of terror organizations from the Colombian FARC to the Saharan Polisario; and that Hugo Chavez has tried to get Carlos the Jackal freed from French prison[33][34]"

Neither of the references given provide any support for the FARC, Polisario connection. The two supporting links for the other implication here - that Chavez supports C. the J. hence supports terrorism - are dubious. [33] contains no specific reference of Chavez at all; it's just a summary of C. the J. [34] does state this connection, but provides no references itself or explanation of sources. It also (in many other articles) refers to other publications for supporting points but fails cite them in a referencable way.

It may be that the information here is indeed correct. If so, please provide better citations (or vis-a-vis FARC/Polisario *any* citation at all) and reinstate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.159.88.45 (talk) 14:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC).

• Before you removed that, I suggest you should have checked Criticism of Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez and Cuba below on this page. There we were discussing the issue and your removal without checking this is likely to lead to an edit war. We are trying to get this article to be both NPOV and something that there won't be any fights over it. Also, I believe that it is standard Wikipedia discussion page protocol to put newest actions at the bottom of the talk page, not at the top. Thank you. Fanra 14:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for the advice. Sorry, I failed to spot the discussion. 3tibet 21:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC) I now have a username :-) Note: also, the bald, drop-in assertion that Polisaro is a terrorist organisation seems rather loaded and NPOV given the history of Western Sahara (based on my admittedly limited knowledge of W. S.)
• Forgive me but I can't find the word "Polisaro" in the article or on this talk page anywhere except where you just mentioned it. What are you talking about? Fanra 22:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
• Never mind, I see you spelled it differently here, it is spelled "Polisario" in the article. I'll now check out your point. Fanra 22:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
• I would have to say that the citation linked says "suggest that the POLISARIO Front may now be resorting to alliances with terrorists,". Note the "may". The only accusations listed are from the Moroccan government, which being at war with Polisario, can't be considered a neutral source. Polisario has been accused of human rights violations, but normally that is considered something different than terrorism. I think the sentence here should, if they wish to mention Polisario, not call it a "terror organization". If someone wishes to mention that Polisario has been accused of human rights violations, as long as they cite the sources, that would be ok but calling them terrorists is unsubstantiated. Fanra 22:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

roger noriega

Yeah, Roger Noriega may have questioned whether Carriles is in the US, but Carriles' lawyer doesn't: [2]. What does the Noriega quote even mean ("may be a manufactured issue")? DanKeshet 17:33, May 5, 2005 (UTC) Sounds like he's denying the allegations because they come from Cuba. Maybe a longer quote would show that more clearly. DJ Silverfish 18:39, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

I wonder if all of the Noriega material should be removed? His significance is questionable. --Agrofe 18:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Biased deletions

This is a highly politized case, Apparently despite all of this Posada was held pending trial for almost nine years. If it took that long to finish the case, it would seem that the charges were not readily provable. That seems a bit too long. Removing those references do not agree with ones point of view is equivalent to censure. El Jigüe 4-7-07 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.65.188.149 (talk) 17:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC).

Confessions

It is my understanding that Posdas Carriles actually confessed many of the crimes we was suspected, so many of these accusations are in fact much more than mere allegations. I think this should be more reflected in the article.--190.48.96.201 05:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

According to FBI files Posada was present at two meetings planning the attack on flight 455 and he was named in a report made the day after the attack so he was involved in some capacity. According to CIA files Posada was recruited as an agent in Feb 1961 (terminated in July 1967 and reinstated in Nov 1967) and was an active CIA agent until 1974 when the CIA became worried over his Mafia connections and the use he was making of explosives the CIA had given him. From 1985 Posada (AKA Ramon Medina) worked for Ollie North smuggling arms (Iran/Contra) and gave an interview to the NYT during this period in which he admitted to the Havana bombings. FBI and CIA files document most of his terrorist activities in great detail. However they are all allegations until he is found guilty no matter how much evidence there is. Wayne 10:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Additions

An editor has added a few lines that are unsourced, and appear to be original research. One in particular caught my eye which read

...and included such doctrines as the 'killings' of the top leaders to stall 'political' movements the US did not approve of [often referred to by US political analysts as the Kissinger Doctrine].

It should be noted that Posada actually allegedly attempted to have Kissinger killed for rapproachment with Cuba in the 1970s, so this is way off the mark.--Zleitzen 01:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Z: Posada may not be the most perfect activist in the world but to attempt to build a case based upon what may not be the most reliable sources, and constantly deleting references to complexities in the case does not make a good article. One notes the Che Guevara article attempts balance, this one does not. For instance one might ask How many prisoners did Posada execute? or How many unarmed aircraft have been shot down by the Castro regime? I personally believe that the methods attributed to, used and/or advocated by Guevara or Posada are NOT morally correct, but that is neither here nor there since in Wikipedia merely an attempt to balance factual evidence is required. Such is not present in this article. El Jigue 4-8-07208.65.188.149 14:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

EJ, you rightly point out that this article doesn't cover the kind of material I've found in this article [3].

'Hero' Some Cuban exiles hostile to the communist government in Havana regard Mr Posada Carriles as a hero, said Pepe Hernandez, president of the Cuban American National Foundation. "He's been fighting one of the worst tyrannies this continent has experienced," Mr Hernandez told AP news agency. Before his detention in Miami, Mr Posada Carriles, who was born in Cuba but has Venezuelan citizenship, insisted his "only objective" was to fight for Cuba's "freedom".

I will try and work on this over the next days.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 15:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's some new information from AP that might be good to add: Prosecutors ask judge to reconsider bond for Cuban militant EL PASO, Texas (AP)-Prosecutors asked a federal judge today to reconsider an order granting bond for anti-Castro militant Luis Posada Carrilles. Posada faces a May trial on charges that he lied to investigators in a bid to become a naturalized citizen. A judge last week granted Posada a 250-thousand bond pending the trial. But today, federal prosecutors asked that the bond be revoked--or that a hearing is held about what Posada would use as collateral. Posada is a 79-year-old former CIA operative wanted in both Cuba and Venezuela on charges that he planned the deadly 1976 bombing od a Cuban jetliner while in Caracas. He is also facing a deportation order after being arrested on an immigration charge two years ago. (April 9, 2007)

One of the problems with this page is that much of the material is "soft" e.g. from that reference you just cited "The papers also reveal that an FBI informer "all but admitted" that Mr Posada was one of those behind the plane bombing." "All but admitted..." is not the kind of foundation a good case is built on. Still such is the murky world of spy vs spy... Also the article does not give any idea of what kind of enemy Posada is trying to fight. BTW Going over Fabio Grobart material is seems unexcapable that he must have been one of those who authorized the Sandalio Junco killing:Both pro- and anti-Castro reports attribute killing of Sandalio Junco to communist agents. Kohan, Néstor, (accessed 4-9-07) footnote 25 p. 123 implicates Vittorio Vidali, famous stalinist assassin. Kohan, Néstor, (accessed 4-9-07) (Prologue by Michael Löwery and Armando Hart Dávalos) Ni Calco ni copia Ensayos sobre el marxismo argentino y latino americano. http://www.rebelion.org/docs/13312.pdf Apparently Cuban government authorized work footnote 25 p. 123 implicates Vittorio Vidali, famous stalinist assassin. Corzo, 2006 (accessed 4-9-07) implicates another communist assassin “Footnote 2 Entrevista con Ricardo Bofil. Osvaldo Sánchez pertenecía al grupo de acción del Partido Socialista Popular .Esta sindicado de haber asesinado al dirigente comunista disidente Sandalio Junco, 1942. Por órdenes de Castro organizó el cuerpo de la Seguridad del Estado en Cuba y fue muerto por fuego antiaéreo del ejército rebelde cuando la avioneta en que volaba sobre la provincia de Matanzas fue confundida con un avión enemigo.” Corzo, Pedro 2006 (accessed 4-9-07) ¿Asesinó Castro a Camilo Cienfuegos? “KillCastro” Blog Monday, October 30, 2006 [http://www.killcastro.com/blog/2006_10_01_archive.html} BTW does Grobarti mean gravedigger in Serbian? I cannot handle Cyrilic alphabets, however if true it sounds like a macabre in joke El Jigue 4-9-07208.65.188.149 02:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Fabio di Celmo

An Italian businessman, Fabio di Celmo, was killed and 11 people wounded as a result. Fabio di Celmo is son of Giustino di Celmo a PhD. in Political Science University of Havana, partisan guerrilla in WWII and a commmunist of long standing. El Jigue208.65.188.149 17:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Laredo Bru

The historical figure Laredo Bru is commonly viewed as a puppet president placed in power by Batista; however, he was also the last Mambi to hold the Cuban presidency. As to contributor "Laredo Bru" the expression "nonsense" is not a very good argument, since such merely expresses POV. El Jigue208.65.188.149 15:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Insertion of pro-Castro/pro-Chavez POV continues

It is quite apparent that insertion of pro-Castro/pro-Chavez POV continues without explanation or rationalization. El Jigue208.65.188.149 15:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Changes to pro-Castro POV continues El Jigue208.65.188.149 19:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Have added back ground on successful litigation against Ms. Barach by Cuban American Foundation: Ann Louise Bardach was granted exclusive interviews with Fidel Castro[4]; however, critics of her work are quick to point out that such interviews are rarely or never granted to those who might criticize the Cuban government, and one of Ms. Bardash's articles was subject to successful litigation [5]. El Jigue208.65.188.149 20:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Miami Herald (Wed, Apr. 25, 2007) has a editorial on the matter [6] ElJigue208.65.188.149 23:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Yet another change to Castro POV has been made without comment El Jigue208.65.188.149 04:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

• I do not want this article to be pro-Castro/pro-Chavez POV. However, it should not be anti-Castro/anti-Chavez either. No mention of either Castro or Chavez should be included except where they relate specifically to Carriles. Please see my post below where I removed some anti-Castro/anti-Chavez stuff you included. If you have some exact parts of the article which you feel are not NPOV, then please bring them up, or even better, please post here a rewrite of them with NPOV, so we can agree that your rewrite is more neutral and better and then we can fix any problems. I really want this article to be neutral and that means neither pro or anti anything. Please also see the section here POV ISSUES PLEASE READ. Thank you and I hope we can resolve these POV problems. Fanra 16:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

When accusations against Posada are based on statements directly, or indirectly based, on "data" provided by Castro and Chavez, their POV and their actions become essential to any argument. El Jigue208.65.188.149 20:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

It is highly bias to not trust the governments of Cuba and Venezuela while going with everything that the American government has said. If you wish to get rid of everything stated by government officials with an agenda, feel free to go through the Osama Bin Laden page and remove everything provided by US federal organizations. -C. TBC —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.189.133.20 (talk) 04:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Enough said. Cuban intelligence has provided a whole lot of the data about Carriles, and of course given that it is the Cuban government their allegations should be taken at face value, but the data should be included nonetheless just like the OBL page routinely includes allegations provided by US government sources. I mean, I think the allegory of "Carriles is to Cuba as Bin Laden is to the US" holds up perfectly -- both states have been attacked by said terrorist, and both states have reason to try and smear said terrorist, but then again both states have taken it upon themselves to investigate said terrorist, so why should we totally discount the information said governments have to provide. 173.3.41.6 (talk) 21:21, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

The Way of the Warrior

Many details of Posada's career are found in his book Camino del Guerrero (The Way of the Warrior) which denies involvement in the destruction of flight 455 and details how he helped destroy the Pro-Castro Venezulan forces and other actions in Central America. El Jigue 4-13-07208.65.188.149 15:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Seeking balance added: On one hand- the group "Agrupación para la Solidaridad Con los Presos Anticastrista en Estados Unidos" presents information alleging that the explosives were set by a provocateur (a secret agent who incites suspected persons to commit illegal acts) double Ricardo “El Mono” Morales Navarrete, whose handlers were DGI, (Cuban Intelligence) officials Cuenca Montoto y Eduardo Fuentes. Agrupación para la Solidaridad Con los Presos Anticastrista en Estados Unidos. 2007 (accessed 4-14-07) Luis Posada Carriles ¿Victimario o victima? (Un plan diabólicamente Genial de Fidel Castro) Net For Cuba, [7] El Jigue

Simplified lead

I've simplified the lead and added Posada's point of view.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 09:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted you, you removed sources. Please take into account the controversial nature of this subject before removing information, and we will be grateful for your help in making a better lead. Tazmaniacs 01:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Well I've just reverted you. There shouldn't actually need to be any sourced material in the lead which should be a summary of the text in the main body of the article see WP:LEAD. The previous lead was difficult to follow, didn't properly explain the subject matter and was full of material cited to unreliable sources. And your revert removed material showing Posadas point of view sourced to the BBC. As for "taking account of the controversial nature of this subject", I wrote most of the article, so I am fully aware of what the subject entails.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 07:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Z: the extensive use of Ann Louise Bardach as a source needs to be qualified in some way since she was forced to pay a considerable amount of money to settle a defamation claim (will insert reference to this again at a soon. El Jigue208.65.188.149 20:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Notes & references

The subsection "notes" appears to be a left-over from precedent versions. Perhaps someone who has followed this entry can have the references formatted in one, simple, way? Tazmaniacs 01:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Ann Louise Bardach data was subjected to litigation

Ann Louise Bardach was granted exclusive interviews with Fidel Castro[8]; however, critics of her work are quick to point out that such interviews are rarely or never granted to those who might criticize the Cuban government, and one of Ms. Bardash's articles was subject to successful litigation [9]. One must bear in mind that unlike some other countries litigation against public figures is much more difficult in the US, thus the settlement paid by Ms. Bardach is of some significance and seriously undermines her credibility. El Jigue208.65.188.149 15:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Please elaborate on this litigation EJ. What it entailed etc, what were the claims, who made them, and how they relate to this article. I think I know what they are, but for the record, could you explain them here? (here is a source that discussed them) If I recall, the 1994 litigation, which had nothing to do with Posada, was due to the New York Times adding a headline of its own to one of her pieces. (update:Actually, having revisited the issue it seems it was the New Republic not the New York Times) As for "such interviews are rarely or never granted to those who might criticize the Cuban government", well she does criticise the Cuban government, though that is not a pre-requisite for a leading journalist to be included as a reliable source. You seem to be clutching at straws here, EJ.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 15:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm in complete disagreement with you here EJ. And I think you are on dangerous ground implying that Bardach's writings about Posada, which have remained uncontested both inside and outside court, are somehow compromised by a litigation in 1994 that had nothing to do with Posada, and actually had little to do with Bardach who merely provided the story about Mas - which was uncontested - whilst the magazine added "mobster" to the title which they were forced to retract. So I believe all your insertions here need to be removed.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 15:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

To further dispute your characterisation of Bardach as uncritical of Castro. Read this interview where she takes Oliver Stone to task for his soft approach to difficult questions in his Castro movies [10]. Now if we were discussing Oliver Stone, then I'd be in complete agreement, but having read Bardach's book and other pieces, I am left with the impression she is as critical of Castro as she is of the Miami leadership.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 15:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Z: Bardach settled that litigation, for several hundred thousand dollars (see Cobas, thesis cited above). The Castro government does not (commonly) allow access to those reporters who have been critical of that government. As much as I dislike the aura Posada has acquired (which if true is really reprehensible), I am still not sure it is correct, and view the excessive reliance on Bardach cites as making the article NPOV. For further discussion one could see a recent report [11]; however even this report does not point out the the "Nation Security Archive" is a private group not tied to the US government and often selects material to "archive" based up what I view as a selective agenda.

It is wise to keep in mind that the Miami Herald has clear and well documented bias against Cuban-American politics, Executive editor Tom Fielder was forced to resign after referring to Cuban-Americans as chihuahua's nipping at this heals. and that has resulted in much politics. In addition, a number of reporters on the Miami Herald and Nuevo Herald are recently imported from Cuba and are apparently unrepented in their support for the Castro government [12].

The whole topic of Luis Posada Carriles is a mess that I find most distasteful; however, one cannot readily take a position on the matter, with the now clearly dictatorial Venezuelan government of Chavez and long established dictatorship of the Castro screaming accusations (but not acknowledging their own greater "sins"), a concert of "liberal" reporters and other intellectuals taking the same odd position. If Posada can be proven in a decent court of law to have done these things, then it is correct to condemn him; however, it is odd to find Guevara's far greater "sins" being excused, while Posada is assumed guilty. Meanwhile, documentation by an intemperate author who is at least acceptable to the Castros' regime, must be presented, cannot be taken at face value and caveats of some sort seem appropriate.El Jigue208.65.188.149 20:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Mella Murder redoux redoux...

BTW In all probability this situation will continue for years for example the role of the Cuban Communist Party in the murder of Mella is cropping up even among Russian Communists and excommunists: Schelchkov, Andrei 2002 (accessed 5-4-07) Los estudios latinoamericanos en Rusia (y en la URSS) Revista Europea de Estudios Latinoamericanos y del Caribe 72, abril de 2002, 205-220 [13] “Una de las esferas importantes de los estudios latinoamericanos en la Rusia actual son las investigaciones de los archivos de la Internacional Comunista, de problemas de los movimientos de izquierda y de historia política. En 1998 el Centro de Estudios Latinoamericanos publicó una compilación de documentos de dicho archivo, con vastos comentarios y notas: La Internacional Comunista y América Latina. Después de ésta ha continuado publicando documentos raros e interesantes de dicho archivo en las páginas del Almanaque histórico latinoamericano editado por el Instituto de Historia Universal (Lat.am.istoricheskii almanakh 2000 No. 1, 2001 No. 2). L. Kheifetz editó un diccionario biográfico de los líderes del Komintern en América Latina (Kheifetz 2000). I. Yanchuk, N. Kalmikov y A. Schelchkov publicaron varios trabajos dedicados a temas del Komintern (Latinskaia Amerika 1994, No. 5, 1996, No. 5, 1997 No. 7). Hoy, los autores tienen acceso a documentos únicos del archivo de la IC y la posibilidad de análisis objetivos, desideologizados de acontecimientos y procesos relacionados con el movimiento comunista. No obstante, todavía nos hallamos lejos de tal situación: algunos historiadores han caído en la trampa del sensacionalismo, como por ejemplo Kheifetz, que insinúa la participación de los líderes del partido comunista de Cuba en el asesinato de Mella (Lat.am. istoricheskii almanakh 2001 No. 2); otros investigadores, y no solamente rusos, como demostró la discusión en la sección de Historia del Komintern realizada durante el congreso de la FIEALC en Moscú en 2001, analizan los problemas de este tema desde un punto de vista demasiado doctrinario, especulando sobre si la política de la IC había sido suficientemente ‘marxista y no dogmática’. Este contenido de la discusión es una vía poco fructífera para investigaciones que tengan como objetivo descubrir la realidad histórica objetiva.” El Jigue208.65.188.149 20:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

comparison to Carlos the Jackal

One should also keep in mind that Hugo Chavez who is so interested in trying Posada, has frequently tried to get "Carlos the Jackal" [14] freed in France [15], El Jigue 208.65.188.149 21:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Archived Past Subjects

I've archived undated and 2005 and 2006 subjects. If you wish to continue any of those discussion subjects or feel that they should be considered still, please feel free to start them again here. I feel that archiving is necessary for us to be able to clearly see what issues need to be considered now versus which ones have been settled. Fanra 03:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

POV ISSUES PLEASE READ

This article has {{POV}} on top of it. Would anyone have an objection if we could remove that and replace it with {{POV-section}} in the section(s) you object to? I feel that even if you object to large parts of this article, that there are likely to be at least a few sections (for example, the "U.S. Charges Dismissed" section) that you might agree are fine. Thank you. Fanra 03:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this. It would also help discuss POV issues in each specific section which would ultimately lead to getting them fixed. (Antonio.sierra 16:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC))

Criticism of Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez and Cuba

Someone from IP 208.65.188.149 added the following to the Seeking asylum in the U.S. section: "Critics of this kind of diplomacy note that not only has Cuba provided to sanctuary to a wide array of terror organizations from the Colombian FARC to the Saharan Polisario; and that Hugo Chavez has tried to get Carlos the Jackal freed from French prison." This does not belong there. The reason it doesn't is that this article is about Luis Posada Carriles, not about Chavez and Cuba. The section is about his seeking asylum. Exactly how does those actions relate to his asylum? In the USA, disagreement with the policies of a government is not grounds for asylum. Note this sentence in the section, "On September 28th a US judge ruled that Posada cannot be deported because he 'faced the threat of torture in Venezuela'." That is a valid part of the section that clearly relates to the request for asylum, since the threat of torture is a legal reason for asylum. I have no love of Chavez and Cuba but if you wish to attack them, this is not the place. I'm removing the sentence and I hope this will not become an edit war. Should the person who posted it wishes to object, please do so here and we can try to resolve it. Thank you. Fanra 15:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

F: If you cannot see the correlation between the request for asylum and Chavez's "situational" ethics, then please ponder the matter a while. El Jigue208.65.188.149 23:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

• El Jigue, I can see the correlation. However, this article is not the place for it. Let's look at an example. If in the article about Gary Powers, I add the fact that Nikita Khrushchev made a speech after he was captured about how he was a big American spy and how dare he spy on us, it would not be appropriate to add in that Khrushchev was being a hypocrite because he was leader of a nation with the largest spy organization (KGB) in the world. Because exactly how does that relate to Powers? Now if Powers replied to Khrushchev's speech with that, then it would apply. Otherwise, it would not.

I see that you (or someone) has removed the quote by Chavez and just put in the sentence, "Critics of this kind of diplomacy note that not only has Cuba provided to sanctuary to a wide array of terror organizations from the Colombian FARC to the Saharan Polisario; and that Hugo Chavez has tried to get Carlos the Jackal freed from French prison" that is much better. However, if you wish to make this point, you need to make it fit the rest of the paragraph better.

For example, perhaps make it a separate paragraph, "In response to the criticism, supporters of Carriles have replied that Cuba provided to sanctuary to a wide array of terror organizations from the Colombian FARC to the Saharan Polisario; and that Hugo Chavez has tried to get Carlos the Jackal freed from French prison, therefore they have no moral standing to judge US actions." Of course, you need to find some citations of this, your opinion isn't good enough, you need to quote someone saying this, which I'm sure will be easy to do, considering his numerous supporters. I'll give you a few days to fix this before I take any actions, as I wish to avoid any edit wars.

By the way, if you are the person who feels that the NPOV tag should remain, then please see the subject right above this one. I would like to get it removed from the top of the article and just put in the sections you feel are not NPOV so we can get this article fixed to everyone's satisfaction. Thank you. Fanra 13:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

F: Much of the trouble with the Luis Posada Carriles page, is that one cannot arrive at personal or general conclusions as to his culpability/innocence if the only allegations of his guilt come from dubious sources. And one cannot readily evaluated charges arising directly or indirectly from the governments of Cuba or Venezuela without considering that these sources have selective judgment in regard to terrorism. Thus: Critics of the charges against Posada that arise directly or indirectly from the governments of Venezuela and Cuba suggest that these charges reflect a selective and partisan view. In support of this view point these critics note that not only has Cuba provided to sanctuary to a wide array of terror organizations from the Colombian FARC [16], through the ETA, to the Saharan Polisario [17] [18]. The Council on Foreign Relations has minimized but not denied these charges [19] Hugo Chavez has tried to get Carlos the Jackal freed from French prison El Jigue 208.65.188.149 16:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• Please note I did not remove your statement, someone else did, see Dubious Assertion at the top of this page. Fanra 14:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• El Jigue, you make a good point about the viewpoints of Venezuela and Cuba. But objections to the charges against him belong in the section where those charges are discussed, not in the asylum section, except to note if he claims that he seeks asylum because the charges against him are politically motivated and that he seeks asylum because he can not get a fair trial because of this. Let me give you an example. Let's say John X has an article here on Wikipedia. He is currently in Pakistan and the USA wants him extradited to the USA to face terrorism charges he was awaiting trial for in the USA when he escaped. George W. Bush makes a speech that John X is a terrorist and Pakistan is wrong to not extradite him. Now, would it be proper to place in the article about John X that George W. Bush has shown he supports Iranian terrorists who fight against Iran and that he has supported Luis Posada Carriles' attempts to gain asylum here? No, it wouldn't. It might be proper to mention the Guantanamo Bay prison camp as proof that Pakistan shouldn't extradite him because Bush would put him there, since Bush just called him a terrorist. However, if the US government assured Pakistan that he would not go to Guantanamo Bay but be tried in normal courts, then the only time Guantanamo Bay should ever be mentioned is if there was some reason to suspect that the government was lying and planning to put him there anyway.

You also overlook the fact that Carriles was imprisoned long before Chavez came to power. He then escaped before trial and was a fugitive from Venezuela. Almost every nation on Earth seeks to extradite people wanted for crimes, so as long as the charges remain, there is nothing unusual about this. Now, perhaps we should make a section about his imprisonment in Venezuela and in that section you can discuss the charges against him that they made and we can examine if they are biased or not. Again, my real point here is that your point of view belongs in the proper place. Fanra 16:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I read the article again, it appears that he was imprisoned for the plane bombing when he escaped, it wasn't clear in that section. I'm going to clear up the section. If you have some evidence that he was innocent of the plane bombing, please place it in that section. I'll also make the asylum part clearer that the reason Venezuela wants him is for that so someone can go to the section and see what you post. Fanra 17:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

F: Posada was found not guilty by a military court in Venezuela, and yet he was held for seven years supposedly pending trial in a civilian court before he escaped. One has to realize that the Castro government from very early on had landed guerrillas to fight the same democratic government of Venezuela that had supported Castro while he was fighting in the mountains. Posada was among those who suppressed these risings. At the present time Chavez has taken over control of the Venezuelan judiciary and Posada could not expect a fair trial. Relatively recently Chavez ordered his military to undergo "socialist training" or leave the armed forces. The point I am trying to make is that these actions of Chavez and the Cuban government (it is not clear who is in charge over there now) reflect bias, and any charges or actions from those sources are clearly "fruit of the poison tree." (an old poem and a legal principal); thus clarification of this point is essential to fairly consider the Posada circumstance. El Jigue208.65.188.149 17:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• Slight problem here. Chavez had nothing to do with his imprisonment and trial, unless the pages on Chavez here are total lies. He was arrested in 1976 and was tried several times before escaping in 1985. Between 1976 and 1985 Chavez had zero political power over civilian courts and its hard to imagine he had any over military courts either. Again, your hatred of Chavez seems to be overlooking some facts. While it might be totally true that his arrest and imprisonment was politically motivated, it wasn't by Chavez. From 1976 to the present there has been ample time for leaders besides Chavez to have dropped the charges against him and none have. Cuba is totally different as Castro has held power the entire time. Fanra 17:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

F: Correct then Chavez was a minor figure merely part and parcel of Castro's continual attempts (from 1959 on) to take over Venezuela. However, as you say Posada was tried at least once and found innocent, but held over for civilian trial. However, Castro was deeply involved in the whole process. Remember, as difficult as you may find it to believe, I am not as much a defender of Posada, but a seeker of balance and fairness. BTW apparently our little discussion may have well attracted a major political fish (see below).

Attempt to silence El Jigue yet again

In a message to my page entitled May 2007

"Ali" writes: Please do not delete content from articles on Wikipedia, as you did to Luis Posada Carriles. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use Wikipedia:Sandbox for test edits. Thank you. Ali 16:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make any unconstructive edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant warnings.

My response was Ali: I hope you are not the Venezuelan oil minister and former guerrilla Ali Rodriguez [20] nor Tariq Ali [21] [22])a paid partisan of Chavez since such would mean that you are part of the process and thus not allowed by Wikipedia rules to edit this article. BTW Your allegation of vandalism is incorrect. El Jigue208.65.188.149 18:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

"Summary of criticism......" - An unnecessary term used within?

"Many charges of terrorism against Posada have been levied; however, few if any have been proven in a court of law. That does not mean they not true, it merely means they have not been proven." I'm just a regular reader who doesn't edit, so I'm not going to change anything. I'm just researching someone I'd never heard of before. The term in bold jarred when I read it. Is it normal wikipedia style to add this statement to every mention of someone not found guilty? Even from the point of view of someone who thinks he does seem a tad "over-militaristic" (sic), that bit sounded just like ramming the point home a bit too much to feel entirely nuetral . It's the sort of 'add-on' comment expected of a partisan newspaper, not a reference work. Thoughts? [[User:Bodmass|] 23:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)Bod.

• Yes, this article has problems. That is one reason it has a tag on top that says the neutrality is disputed. Unfortunately, people can't seem to see him as an individual but only as a symbol of anti Castro resistance. What they need to understand is that even people on your side or on the other side can be good or bad people regardless of which side they are on. The "good" side can have "bad" people on it and the "bad" side can have "good" people on it. The Allies in World War II had both the United States, FDR, the Soviet Union and Stalin on their side. Does that make them the good side or the evil side? I consider Stalin a very evil man but that doesn't mean I see the Allies or FDR as evil. And even though Stalin was on the "good" side, that doesn't make him a good man, even if he hated Hitler and helped defeat the Nazis. Fanra 21:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

F: Sorry if you like you can remove that statement I just put that there to attempt to achieve balance and NPOV. El Jigue208.65.188.149 22:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

• I removed that statement and also fixed the grammar in that section. Fanra 22:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Could this have been his get out of jail free card?

U.S. Court Frees Posada Carriles, a Self-Proclaimed Terrorist

"Posada Carriles's lawyer has preemptively warned that if charged, his client would likely reveal extensive collaboration with the CIA." -- Los Angeles Times

"Posada Carriles was trained in sabotage and explosives at the CIA's School of the Americas for an invasion of Cuba at the Bay of Pigs."

I wonder if Posada Carriles knows anything about the involvement of George H. W. Bush in the assassanation of John F. Kennedy?

Could this have been his get out of jail free card?

Wisepiglet 02:22, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Warned CIA before 1976 bombing?

This sentence, "National Security Archives reveal documents outlining that Posada warned the CIA months before the 1976 bombing that fellow exiles were planning such an attack." is undocumented. The citation is for here: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB202/index.htm I've looked at that site and while I find several reports of informants claiming Posada knew about the bombing beforehand, I can't find any reports dated before the bombing that say this. If I can find even one report dated before the bombing that links Posada, I will go with it but right now it appears that all the information is after the fact. If no one objects, I want to remove this sentence. Fanra 22:34, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, what I have is that the CIA was warned that CORU was planning to bomb a plane. I'm looking for more proof that Posada was a leader in CORU, then I can put that in the article instead. If I don't find proof linking Posada with CORU, I'll still put in the information about CORU but add that it is alleged that he is a leader. Fanra 22:51, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

F: Tue, however, the problems with the National Security Archive documents include that they are that they are selected by the archivists of this often militant organization; they are not original documents but those which have been selectively censored and it is not always clear if the sections blacked out include material other than censored by the source. Still if one keeps in mind those caveats these documents can be useful. I would prefer if the National Security Archive origens of the documents were mentioned... selective removal of material, in one socks (:)) is not unknown in US archives. However, this is better than the 70 year or so limitation of some European countries. Will try and insert names and origins of passengers on flight 455. Trying to track down a report that the Cuban government did not wish the plane's recovery when this was offered by the British Government. There may be far more to this than seems apparent at first sight. El Jigue208.65.188.149 22:55, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

• The National Security Archive decides which of the documents it receives to place on its web site. However, as far as I know, any censorship of the documents they post was done by the US government in order to protect classified information, usually the identity of informants who are still alive. And such censorship entails blacking out names and sections, not adding anything; or removing information other than blacking it out and possible removing pages but any pages removed would be noted. Fanra 23:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Citing Sources

I would like to request when anyone puts in a citation that they use the method of <ref>http://www.goodsource.com</ref> rather than just put in [http://www.goodsource.com]. That way all the citations can be of the same type and will be automatically listed at the bottom in the References section. Thank you. Fanra 23:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

F: Hang on that also takes more time. A reference in what ever form is far better than none. Will do as time permits, as I am very busy writing now. El Jigue208.65.188.149 23:48, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

• More time? Ok, instead of [ you have to type <ref> and instead of ] you have to type </ref>. That's all you have to do. I don't think that is too much to ask :). Fanra 23:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Passenger list

The list linked shows 57 people while the article says 73 were aboard and all killed. Thus, either only 57 people were aboard or the list is not complete. The list also does not include the North Korean Diplomatic team mentioned. The link "according to Posada" says nothing about Posada that I can read, although it is in Spanish and I had to use a translation web site to read it, still names should be the same in both Spanish and English. I'm going to remove this until we can get it straightened out, sorry. Fanra 23:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

• Ok, I checked again, apparently it was written by Posada, sorry, my bad. Fanra 23:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
• Actually, the passenger list doesn't even belong here, it belongs here: Cubana Flight 455. If you want to post it, please do so there. The only thing that belongs here is if Posada knew something about the list that is important to his guilt or innocence. Please just put that in if there is something and remove the list. Fanra 23:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
• Also, if you do put the list on Cubana Flight 455 please translate it to English, words like "supervisor de tráfico aéreo internacional" do not belong here on the English language Wikipedia. Thank you. Fanra 23:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

F: Will do but that takes time, then I can summarize, e.g. 27 crew members or associated aviation personnel.

For now I will enter this data in the discussion. Will get the Guayanese diplomats and visitors later. The fishing fleet personnel (not yet included) would have double duty since the Cuban shrimping fleet; as did Soviet trawlers of that era, also had espionage or even discrete infiltration duties too.

The breakdown of passengers suggests that the flight either was carrying a lot of aviation personnel or some of the passengers were ringers. But this cannot be shown by this data.

Given the era it is possible or perhaps even probable that the plane was carrying some agents; this is clear with regard to the North Koreans since they never travel without security agents. Let me see what I can dredge up. The fencing team is said to be in military uniform.

Yet it still seems that there were a number of innocents aboard.

• El Jigue, your posting of the passenger list a second time, after it was removed and discussed here, is disruptive and insulting to myself. Again, there is no need to list every person on board by name. Since you insist on mentioning the passengers, I'm going to put in a summery of it taken from Cubana Flight 455. If you feel that because some of the passengers were government officials that it was a legitimate target, then you can say so. Of course, you need to cite your source that says it was a legitimate target, not just your opinion. But just mention that and list that fact, don't name every single person. I posted to you on your personal talk page about this issue and you have not responded to me, instead you have gone and done what you wish here. Your failure to discuss a controversial issue and your acting unilaterally is not in the spirit of Wikipedia. If you have objections to my actions, please ask for a mediation. Fanra 16:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Passenger list

The passenger list included representatives from a number of different countries. A partial list with photographs is found Professor Antonio de la Cova's Latin American studies site [23] the data comes from Cuban official sources.

There were 27 victims identified as crew members or aviation officials and one spouse of the same: Mérida, 32 años, sobre cargo internacional; Carlos. T CoqueroPerdomo, 43 años, inspector de segWilfredo Pérez Pérez, piloto. Héroe Nacional del Trabajo; Angel Tomás Rodríguez, 36 años, jefe de Preparación Técnica de Cubana de Aviación; Miguel Espinosa Cabrera, 47 años, copiloto del DC-8; Ernesto Machín Guzmán, 40 años, mecánico; Ramón J. Ferrándiz Lefebre, 39 años, sobrecargo mayor de Cubana de Aviación; Magaly Grave de Peralta Ferrer,33 años, aeromoza de vuelosinternacionales; Moraima GonzálezPrieto, 21 años, aeromoza de vuelos internacionales; Marlene GonzálezArias, 23 años, aeromoza de vuelos internacionales; Silvia Marta Pereira Jorge, 28 años, aeromoza de vuelos internacionales; Miriam Remedios de la Peña, 24 años, aeromoza de vuelos internacionales; María Elena Rodríguez del Rey Bocalandro, 28 años, aeromoza de vuelos internacionales; Armando RamosPagán, 38 años, piloto de Cubana de Aviación; Armando E. Armengol Alonso, 58 años, piloto de Cubana de Aviación; Valentín Ladrónde Guevara, 39 años, técnico de Cubana de Aviación; José Pestana González, 41 años, jefe de departamento en Cubana de Aviación; Roberto G. Palacios Torres, 27 años, navegante de Cubana de Aviación; Guillermo Valencia Guinot, 53 años, sobrecargo internacional; Eusebio Sánchez Domínguez, 25 años, sobre cargo internacional; Lázaro Serrano seguridad aeronáutica; Lázaro Otero Madruga, 34 años, inspector de ruta de Cubana de Aviación; Emilio Castillo Castillo, 33 años, inspector de vuelos de Cubana de Aviación; Carlos Cremata Trujillo, 41 años, despachador de vuelos de Cubana de Aviación; Martí Suárez Sánchez, 30 años, supervisor de tráfico aéreo internacional; Tomás J. González Quintana, 41 años, supervisor de control general de Cubana de Aviación; Manuel A. Rodríguez Font, 46 años, funcionario de Cubana de Aviación en Barbados; Julia Rosa Torres Alvarez, 46 años, esposa del jefe de la oficina de Cubana de Aviación en Barbados; Jesús Rojo Quintana, 33 años, funcionario de Cubana de Aviación,

There were 23 identified as athletic team members

The North Korean Diplomatic team included: Juan Ne Ik, Kim Do Yen, Pak Je Chin, Kl Bong y Jan Sang Kyu according to Posada [24] it is not clear how Posada obtained this information. El Jigue208.65.188.149 23:44, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

need mention of Machurucuto

Working on getting mention of Invasion of Machurucuto [25] and its links to this topic. This article from Time shows some linkage to Cuban shipping [26] but as yet do not have one that says specifically "Cuban shrimping ship" or such to make the linkage to the shrimp boat officials killed on flight 455. El Jigue208.65.188.149 16:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The word Terrorist

The word TERRORIST is the same as FREEDOM FIGHTER, it just depends on who says it.. That is why I feel in the first line of the article it should say " terrorist/freedom fighter". Arafat was a terrorist to Israel yet to Arabs he is a freedom fighter.. What is the difference between Arafat and Posada? Callelinea 02:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Terrorist is not the same a freedom fighter, and those who say they are argue with elaborate sophisms. Where any if the major allegations against Posada prove to true, I personally will state that such actions go against freedom and thus he, by definition, would not be a "freedom fighter." However, the proof of such has to be solid and irrefutable, not some of the nonsense (e.g. "no well placed anonymous" for this is not the Star Chamber or coerced (for this is a free forum) witnesses) that has been placed at this site. El Jigue208.65.188.149 04:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Then would you say Arafat was a terrorist or a freedom fighter in Palestine? Are suicide bombers in Iraq terrorists or fredom fighters, because they want the US out of their country? Where Zionists freedom fighters or terrosits to the British in Israel? Again I say, one groups terrorist is another groups freedom fighter. Callelinea 05:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Rather than begin a long argument over this issue, I have a proposal. Since the word "terrorist" is loaded with social stigma how about we change it to "anti-Castro militant". Then under that, it already says that some people call him a terrorist and some call him a freedom fighter. Anyone object to this? Fanra 10:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

That seams to me like a perfect word. Callelinea 19:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

You have to be kidding. Carriles is a terrorist under any difinition you like and is seen as such by everyone but apologists. He has been convicted of terrorist attacks in a court of law and even admitted it himself. What next? You want to classify al Qaeda as a militant organisation instead of terorist as well? Wayne 05:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• Wayne, we seek two different goals here. The first is to avoid an edit war. While some people might claim that we are wrong to be "PC" or "give in" on this issue, we have to face reality. The reality is that Wikipedia is an open encyclopedia and since anyone can edit it, we have to try to avoid getting in the middle of volatile political issues. That does not mean that we avoid the truth, it means that we try to use neutral language to describe things. Which leads to the second issue, the word "terrorist" is generally not used in a neutral way to describe people who commit acts of terror. The word is used far more often to describe people who are enemies of those using the term. It is not a neutral word.

If you see: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, you will find the following statement, "Readers are left to form their own opinions.". In Posada's article, we open with describing him as a "militant". Then in the very next paragraph, we say, "Posada has been accused of involvement in various terrorist attacks" and "has admitted to his involvement in other terrorist plots". That leaves it open for anyone to form their opinion. Under that we put, "is regarded as a hero by some" and "only objective was to fight for Cuba's freedom", that covers the other side. We then leave it to the reader to decide if they feel he is a terrorist or not. Wikipedia's job is not to make such judgments, no matter how "obvious" they might seem to be. It is our job to present the facts and the facts themselves will make things obvious to anyone with an open mind. We can't change closed minds and we should not try to.

According to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, all sides in an issue are not entitled to equal weight, and we don't give both sides equal weight. However, all sides should be fairly represented.

This paragraph is off topic but just to cover this issue: As for your statement about al Qaeda, yes, if al Qaeda describes themselves as a militant organization, then that is how the first line should read. Right under that we can put that, "27 nations and the United Nations consider them a terrorist group", if that is true. The reader can then decide if they think they are a terrorist group or not. Go to Definition of terrorism and pay special attention to Edward Peck where he says, "...when I was the Deputy Director...of the...Task Force on Terrorism, they asked us...to come up with a definition of terrorism...and each and every case, they were rejected, because careful reading would indicate that our own country [United States] had been involved in some of those activities." So, therefore, if I wanted to, I could make the first sentence of most leaders of the world with, "George W. Bush is an American terrorist" or "Fidel Castro is a Cuban terrorist" or "Hu Jintao is a Chinese terrorist". Fanra 13:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The FBI called CORU, which Carriles helped found, "an anti-Castro terrorist umbrella organization." (See this article. Since the FBI makes this designation, I see no reason not to include it in this article. Griot 13:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• The fact that the FBI calls someone a terrorist does not mean they are. While the FBI is a good source, they are not the final arbitrators of the English language or of terrorism. Please note that United States law labels acts of terrorism actions that would not be considered terrorism by most of the world, thus if the Mafia killed a witness to a crime, that would be terrorism by the standards of the law since it: a.)involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws, b.) appear to be intended - to affect the conduct of a government by...assassination.

The FBI also labeled Martin Luther King, Jr. a Communist and "the most notorious liar in the country.", both of which are false. Fanra.

I do admire your chutzpah for comparing Carriles to MLK, but the comparison doesn't wash. Also, what does a communist have to do with a terrorist. They are different, are they not? Griot 18:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

It should be included in the article, but the first sentence of the article should not be changed, especially since there has been discussion here about it and a consensus was reached. If you object to the consensus that was reached, then we can reopen the issue, however, during the discussion, it should remain "militant".

No one should change it from "militant" to "terrorist" without a consensus reached here first. Doing so without one is disruptive and will lead to an edit war. Please try to remember: Wikipedia:Etiquette. Thank you. Fanra 14:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

If Carrilles isn't a terrorist, who is? Is Bin Ladin a militant? What's at stack is the question of whether "terrorism" can be defined by an individual state or whether there is a universal definition of terrorism. By a universal definition, Carrilles is a terrorist. If terrorist acts committed in the name of the United States or some other entitiy are "militant" acts, then Carrilles may not be considerd a terrorist. I prefer the universal definition. I think we should have standards. Griot 18:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• There is no universal definition of terrorist. Did you even bother to follow the links I put here on the issue? There was a consensus reached back in May. Rather than reopen the issue and discuss the issue, you just unilaterally changed it. Since you want to disregard my points of logic and just demand that we agree with your label, I'm not going to enter an edit war with you, it isn't worth it.

HOw many hairs do you want to split. If a man plants a bomb that kills 73 civilians, he is a terrorist. I favor the universal definition. No matter what side a person is on or what his cause is, if he commits acts in the name of that cause by targeting innocent civilians, he is a terrorist. Griot 19:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't comparing MLK with Posada, I was just showing that the FBI is not God and they make mistakes and they are not neutral. But whatever, this is not worth arguing about. I tried to follow procedure here and reach a solution we could all agree on. If you wish to do the same, we can continue this discussion. Otherwise, I'll just move on and let chaos win. Fanra 21:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• The real funny thing is that I personally think he is a terrorist. It's just that I managed to stop an edit war in May and get people to reach a consensus that we use the word militant. So I will sit back and watch as an edit war starts again. I'm just going to watch and no longer bother to try to get this article to be correct. You want us to use a word that has no formal definition and is not neutral and highly emotionally charged. As well as ignoring Wikipedia policies on Neutral Point of View and handling disputes and Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Fanra 21:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Do you know why you "personally think Carilles is a terrorist"? Because he is one. You say there is no formal definition of terrorism. Here's one: Terrorism is the killing of civilians or the threatening of civlians to advance a cause. If you blow up civilians in an airliner to advance your cause, whether it is endorsed by the United States or not, you are a terrorist.Griot 23:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Defining "terrorist": Does the word apply to Carilles?

In order to resolve the question of whether Carriles is a terrorist, it looks like we need a definition of this word. It's been suggested that one man's terrorist is anoother's freedom fighter or militant. For example, Yassar Arafat has been described as a terrorist. To my mind, a terrorist is one who works in a small cell unafiliated with a government or military organization who engages in violent acts not against other military or police entities, but against civilians. By this definition, Carriles is clearly a terrorist. His target in the airplane bombing were all civilians. He worked in a small cell of Cuban anti-Castro fighters. What we shouldn't do when we define "terrorist" is judge the rightness or wrongness of the terrorist's cause. The term applies to the means with which the person engages in action, not in whether the means was justified either at the time it was committed or by history.Griot 20:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• I suggest everyone go here: Definition of terrorism. If you do so, you will see there is no agreed upon definition of the word. That is why Wikipedia:Words to avoid says not to use it, other than when quoting someone who uses the word. Thus,

In line with the Wikipedia Neutral Point of View policy, the words "Extremist", "Terrorist" and "Freedom fighter" should be avoided unless there is a verifiable citation indicating who is calling a person or group by one of those names in the standard Wikipedia format of "X says Y". In an article the words should be avoided in the unqualified "narrative voice" of the article. [emphasis added]

— Wikipedia:Words to avoid

Fanra 20:51, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Wiki says the term "should be avoided." That doesn't mean it shouldn't be used. What Wiki is telling you is to use the term judisciously in cases where it really applies. As it does here. Griot 00:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• "should be avoided" means "should not be used". Go to dictionary.com and put in "avoided". If you still need more examples, go to Osama bin Laden. He is probably the most famous "terrorist" in the world, he actually told his followers to kill American civilians, so he qualifies as a terrorist for the vast majority of the definitions. Yet his Lead Section never mentions the word once.

How "should be avoided" could equal "use where really applies" is something that makes my mind explode. Please, please, please, read: Wikipedia:Words to avoid. It explains quite clearly that the word terrorist is not a neutral description that you can apply to people. It is a word designed to label someone as evil and has no place in an encyclopedia except with the proper explanation. Fanra 05:47, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

C'mon. How thinly do you want to slice this little hair? "Should be avoided" and "should not be used" do not mean the same thing. Driving in thunderstorms should be avoided. That doesn't mean you can't drive in a thunderstorm if you have a good reason to. Similarly the term "terrorist" should be avoided in Wiki articles, but if you have a good reason to use it, it can be used. How many people did Carriles kill in that airplane? Griot 20:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• My feelings are that you are the one splitting hairs here. Wikipedia:Words to avoid is quite clear on the issue. Taking words out of context and ignoring the entire purpose of the article on words to avoid makes for nice comments about thunderstorms but is not the way to write an encyclopedia. I've made my points clear. If the example of Osama bin Laden can't convince you, then nothing will. I see no further point in continuing this discussion. We disagree and that is that. Fanra 15:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Lets remove the issue of government here. This is what essentially happened. A man blew up a passenger plane, killing civilians to further his cause. The people killed had no political significance. It should not matter if the people killed are white, brown, black, purple, communist, rich, whatever. It is common to call the rebels of the 70's in western Germany terrorists because they killed people in their work. I have no problem with that, they are terrorists, and I support them. Terrorist does not mean you cannot support the person, though it might make you look like a worse person, though I am sure we all support some crazy violent people out there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.189.133.20 (talk) 04:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Personally I don't think the fact that the cell is aligned or not with a government makes any difference. The military are trained for war. However, when you purposely attack civilians, that will scare other civilians, and most probably deter them from spontaneously joining whatever cause you're fighting against. This is something that is carried away by individuals, or cells and these are sometimes associated with governments. The CIA has historically resorted to this methods. That is the purpose of terrorism. That is what Posada Carriles did. The fact that the American government bastardized and manipulated the term to label and try to diminish all resistance in the world against them is a different subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.146.96.141 (talk) 04:16, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

El C

Writes: "Hi. Look, you've been here for years now, but you're still conducting yourself as if you've been here for weeks: in terms of style, in terms of original research and clear citations, in terms of neutral point of view. This cannot continue indefinitely. Thanks. El_C 20:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)"

Apparently El C does not think of himself as biased; however, his site has all the earmarks of a propaganda forum and the name implies that he is the commandante.

For instance this is one of the latest "discussions" found at his site:

"I seriously doubt that the person with your kind of political affiliations is the one to judge were red army / partisans "liberated" anything -88.85.134.121

Liberation is the term used when it comes to Nazi or Nazi-affiliated forces; your changes are crudely pov. El_C 23:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I call bullshit on that, its nothing more than communist propaganda to say that reds 'liberated' any areas outside russias own. I admit that I could have used a better term but liberation? -Hardly. Just a switch from another occupier to another.

Please exercize greater restraint with your tone. The act of defeating the Nazis is known in the historiography as "liberated," what happened after is another matter. If your sole aim on Wikipedia is to change liberated to something else, without drawing on the scholarship, that strikes me as disruptive. El_C 23:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)"

It would seem that once again El C is looking for an excuse to ban me, as he has many times before, until it became so obvious that he was merely promoting his own POV and there after his complaints were ignored.

El Jigue208.65.188.149 04:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• El Jigue, everything you said in this section does not belong on this Talk page. See Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Thank you. Fanra 15:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Attempted rewording

Rewording attempting NPOV has been inserted: "His opponents consider him a terrorist and label him as such; however, his supporters point out that details of Posada's involvement is not documented well enough to label him such, and the people he allegedly attacked, although there seems to have been considerable collateral lethality to innocents, involved some opposing violent activists."

In addition, the words "a string of bombings" has been modified to reflect present reality. Only one person was killed and he was an Italian communist carrying out unspecified activities. El Jigue208.65.188.149

• "advocate of armed action to overthrow communist governments in Latin America."

  This is misleading. In English an advocate is "A person who speaks in support of something." according to Wiktionary. Posada isn't someone who just speaks. He takes action.

"His opponents consider him a terrorist and label him as such; however, his supporters point out that details of Posada's involvementis not documented well enough to label him such, and the people he allegedly attacked, although there seems to have been considerable collateral lethality to innocents, involved some opposing violent activists (North Korean agents, Cuban security forces, etc.)."

This part belongs with the paragraph that begins, "Posada, nicknamed Bambi,[9] is regarded as a hero by some".

In addition, you have bypassed our discussion above entitled, The word Terrorist, and just changed it on your own. Please read that discussion.

I would like to change what you put in. I feel I can make it balanced and readable. However, I hesitate to unilaterally change it because I wish to avoid an edit war. I'm going to post on your personal talk page my version in the hopes you will approve. Fanra 15:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Use of the term "militant" is fine with me El Jigue208.65.188.149 20:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Fabio di Celmo

I would like to know where you got the information that the only one killed was an Italian communist? I do not remember anywhere written what is party affiliation was. I only heard that he was an Italian tourist. So unless you can back up that he was a member of the Communist Party of Italy may I suggest you refrain from putting in baised remarks. Callelinea 19:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I have just read the reference placed about the dead Italian. In it it states his father was a Socialist not a Communist and no where did it state that the dead Italian was a Communist.. Just because a parent is a socialist does not mean that a son will follow his father's footsteps.. So unless you can back your claim that the dead Italian was a communist I would suggest that you stop belittling his murder because of what you think might of been his political affiliation.Callelinea 19:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• First, the (see below) in the Lead Section is both unusual and annoying. It is redundant. If someone is interested, of course they will see below about it. Either the information is important enough to go there or it isn't.

Next the sentence: "Fabio di Celmo was the youngest son of Giustino di Celmo a PhD. in Political Science University of Havana, partisan guerrilla in WWII and a commmunist of long standing," - Is both unclear and unnecessary. The sentence doesn't make it clear if Fabio or Giustino has the PhD., was in WWII and a communist. But more importantly, there is no need for it at all. Unless there is something special about him, there isn't even a reason to name him, although that is ok. But going into his life story, unless it relates to this somehow, is not for this article but for one on Fabio, if we would ever make one, which I don't see as desirable. Fanra 20:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

F: Giustino di Celmo writes in this article "«Con la caída transitoria del sistema socialista, tuve una crisis moral muy grande, pero enseguida mi mirada fue hacia Cuba, esta pequeña Isla, faro en la oscuridad y la tristeza, y determiné que la única alternativa de mi vida era venir y ayudar en algo, con mi actividad de empresario, a que esta tierra pudiera resistir. Por eso vine en 1992, cuando comenzaba a arreciar el período especial." Only a "communist" would call the eastern block countries socialist". di Celmo's own statement "Con la caída transitoria del sistema socialista" expresses a hope of revival, of what everybody else calls the communist eastern block. In addition if you are unfamiliar with WWII Italian history you need to know that he was with the communists partisans. True that does not make his son a communist; however, if his son Fabio had rebelled against his father "faith" it was very unlikely he would have gone to Cuba which was and still is a lighthouse (faro) of communism. El Jigue208.65.188.149 20:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• First off, I don't understand Spanish and since this is the English language Wikipedia, you shouldn't expect anyone here to do so. So please just translate anything you want to say here to English, you can provide a link to the original Spanish if you wish to let people confirm your translation is correct.

Secondly, and most important, his political views are TOTALLY unimportant. If he was an agent of the government and was killed for that reason, rather than just happen to be the random victim of an indiscriminate bombing, as appears to be the case, then it would be important. I would guess that over 50% of the Cuban people might call themselves Communists but that has nothing to do with the fact that they are civilians. Again, it is the duty of anyone editing here to prove that their contribution is valid, not my job to prove it isn't. Fabio di Celmo could have been a child molester but unless Posada targeted him in an attempt to kill off child molesters, it is irrelevant to this article. Fanra 16:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Ignorance of Spanish is not a good excuse to reject information on a Latin American matter, since to demand tends to undermine the credentials of those who suggest such. It is true that di Celmo fils political views are unimportant; however his activities in Cuba were suspect as were those of North Koreans on flight 455. I removed businessman and tourist label given to di Celmo, because they conflict, and the use of both terms suggest error. Another matter this article applies a far weaker criteria for accepting accusations against Posada, than against those he is reputed to have killed. Posada it seems acted in a world of shadows, where agents of many sides were involved. The difficulty with this article is that such acceptance of not readily substantiated data be balanced. El Jigue208.65.188.149 01:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Original research

Cut from article, inferring "lack of objectivity" in the Posada case from this source is original research:

Hugo Chavez' lack of objectivity in regard to terrorism in general is readily demonstrated by comparing his demands to try Posada with his calling Carlos the Jackal, "a good friend."

JRSP 11:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Passenger list

Critical details on the natute of the passengers aboard been excised from this section.

The passenger list included representatives from a number of different countries. A partial list with photographs is found Professor Antonio de la Cova's Latin American studies site [3] the data comes from Cuban official sources. Examination of this list and Posada's list of North Koreans (see below), plus the report that fencing team members were in Cuban armed forces were in Cuban Army uniforms. The frequent reports that the Cuban fishing vessels were used to land guerrillas especially in Venezula, have lead to the interpretation that the senior administrators of these operations were legitimate military targets.

There were 27 victims identified as crew members or aviation officials and one spouse of the same: Mérida, 32 años, sobre cargo internacional; Carlos. T CoqueroPerdomo, 43 años, inspector de segWilfredo Pérez Pérez, piloto. Héroe Nacional del Trabajo; Angel Tomás Rodríguez, 36 años, jefe de Preparación Técnica de Cubana de Aviación; Miguel Espinosa Cabrera, 47 años, copiloto del DC-8; Ernesto Machín Guzmán, 40 años, mecánico; Ramón J. Ferrándiz Lefebre, 39 años, sobrecargo mayor de Cubana de Aviación; Magaly Grave de Peralta Ferrer,33 años, aeromoza de vuelosinternacionales; Moraima GonzálezPrieto, 21 años, aeromoza de vuelos internacionales; Marlene GonzálezArias, 23 años, aeromoza de vuelos internacionales; Silvia Marta Pereira Jorge, 28 años, aeromoza de vuelos internacionales; Miriam Remedios de la Peña, 24 años, aeromoza de vuelos internacionales; María Elena Rodríguez del Rey Bocalandro, 28 años, aeromoza de vuelos internacionales; Armando RamosPagán, 38 años, piloto de Cubana de Aviación; Armando E. Armengol Alonso, 58 años, piloto de Cubana de Aviación; Valentín Ladrónde Guevara, 39 años, técnico de Cubana de Aviación; José Pestana González, 41 años, jefe de departamento en Cubana de Aviación; Roberto G. Palacios Torres, 27 años, navegante de Cubana de Aviación; Guillermo Valencia Guinot, 53 años, sobrecargo internacional; Eusebio Sánchez Domínguez, 25 años, sobre cargo internacional; Lázaro Serrano seguridad aeronáutica; Lázaro Otero Madruga, 34 años, inspector de ruta de Cubana de Aviación; Emilio Castillo Castillo, 33 años, inspector de vuelos de Cubana de Aviación; Carlos Cremata Trujillo, 41 años, despachador de vuelos de Cubana de Aviación; Martí Suárez Sánchez, 30 años, supervisor de tráfico aéreo internacional; Tomás J. González Quintana, 41 años, supervisor de control general de Cubana de Aviación; Manuel A. Rodríguez Font, 46 años, funcionario de Cubana de Aviación en Barbados; Julia Rosa Torres Alvarez, 46 años, esposa del jefe de la oficina de Cubana de Aviación en Barbados; Jesús Rojo Quintana, 33 años, funcionario de Cubana de Aviación,

There were 23 identified as athletic team members. The North Korean Diplomatic team included: Juan Ne Ik, Kim Do Yen, Pak Je Chin, Kl Bong y Jan Sang Kyu according to Posada [4] it is not clear how Posada obtained this information.

[The above comment was unsigned]

• [Reply to unsigned comment above] PLEASE READ THIS DISCUSSION PAGE BEFORE POSTING

It has already been posted here along with my point that it doesn't belong in the article. Please read what I posted. If you disagree with my points, then please address them with specific reasons why each of my points is invalid. Thank you. Fanra 16:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• PLEASE SEE THE DISCUSSION FAR ABOVE THIS ON THE PASSENGER LIST. CREATING ANOTHER COPY OF THE LIST HERE AND STARTING ANOTHER SUBJECT HEADING ON THE SAME SUBJECT IS REDUNDANT AND CONFUSING. DISCUSS THE ISSUE WAY UP ABOVE HERE, DON'T HAVE TWO DIFFERENT PLACES ON THIS PAGE FOR THE SAME ISSUE. Thank you. Fanra 16:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Venezuela's extradition request

On what basis is the U.S. refusing the extradition request from Venezuela? It would be helpful if the article would set forth the U.S. government's position on the matter, along with any notable criticisms of the official rationale. JamesMLane t c 09:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

First charges would have be proven, and assurances of a fair trial have to be made (this is unlikely given present state of judiciary and media (e.g. [27]) in Venezuela). El Jigue208.65.188.149 19:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• It was said in the article that a judge ruled he can't be extradited to Venezuela because of the possibility they would torture him. I would guess that Venezuela has to try to appeal that. It seems that the wishes of the US government (Bush administration) are unimportant at this point, unless the judge is overruled by a higher court. I'll try to make it clearer in the article. Fanra 08:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Removing POV tag on the word terrorist

I have noticed that people are removing my POV tag from the word "terrorist" in this article. While you might feel the word terrorist is appropriate (even though WP:Words to avoid says not to use it), are you claiming that there is no dispute over its use? Because I dispute it and so do some other people. What the tag means is that some people disagree over whether it belongs there. Perhaps you are unaware that the tag means this, it does not mean that the word is right or wrong, it means that there is a disagreement over it. Since there is in fact a disagreement over it, can we agree that it is ok for me to put it back? Thank you. Fanra 03:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I think they are enough official sources and others describing Carriles' various campaign of bombings (Cubana Aviacion being only one of them) as acts of terrorism. If the article lacks sources, please add "citation needed" templates. Cheers! Tazmaniacs 11:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• Tazmaniacs, please read the discussions above regarding this. Also, please read: WP:Words to avoid. Basically, Wikipedia policy says to not use the word terrorist to describe anyone. You can use it in the article in the form of, "The Placistan government has called Posada a terrorist" but Wikipedia itself is supposed to not be judgmental. Especially about a word that is pejorative and a word that has no agreed upon definition (see: Definition of terrorism). Fanra 15:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  • As an outside observer I do think that the word terrorist is unnecessary in this article. While he unquestionably meets most definitions of terrorist, that term is so pejorative and value laden that it can't help but seem to be expressing a certain point of view. As long as the article clearly and accurately describes his various actions, our readers can be left to make their own conclusions. - SimonP 01:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Please do read the discussion above, Fanra! I think that someone wanted for several bombings is a terrorist. Or how do you call a guy who make a plane loaded with civilians explode in flight, carry out a string of bombings against touristic ressorts, etc? Please avoid weasel words, thanks. Tazmaniacs 14:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no doubt that he is a terrorist, but that still doesn't mean we should use the word. The word terrorist is an inherently pejorative word, and as such its usage always carries implied value judgments along with it. It is similar to the word evil. There is no doubt that bin Laden or Hitler qualify as evil by almost anyone's definition, but we would never describe them as such because the the word is so value laden. - SimonP 13:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Is this discussion really happening? Has the world gone crazy? Are you really making that strong a case for the madness of moral relativism? Do you understand ethics? You believe it is foolish to call Hitler, Mussolini, Bonaparte, Stalin, Bushs, JFK, Bin Laden, Posada Carriles, and all others involved in despotism and/or state terrorism as evil? I think I understand why Catholics hate moral relativists. The FBI and CIA consider him to be a terrorist. The proof is in these declassified FBI and CIA documents. http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB153/index.htm Pistolpierre 18:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

And I personally consider some of the past acts of the CIA to be terrorism. The point made by SimonP is that, if the facts make it so blindingly and undeniably obvious that he's a terrorist, then all we have to do is make sure the article presents those facts, and the reader will conclude that he's a terrorist. The reader who concludes instead that he's been framed by lies from the CIA and/or hostile governments is free to believe that. Governments have lied, you know. Wikipedia's use of the word "terrorist" to describe him doesn't add anything to the reader's understanding. JamesMLane t c 16:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

The Wikipedia policies are quite clear on this 'terrorist' word shouldn't describe anyone.Also it could be a BLP violation--Shrike (talk) 07:41, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

CIA Training

Seems disputed where exactly the training of Carriles as USArmy officer took place. Some talk about the School of Americas, but seems more likely to have been trained in Fort Benning (that is the actual location of former School of the Americas, even if at the times of Carriles' training the SOA was in Panama) since it's proved he was there before invasion of pay of pigs. For this reason Ultramarine added that he doesnt appears on SOA Watch archives.

So I suggest to change the current lines: "The National Lawyers Guild states that by 1961 Posada had relocated to the United States where he was trained in sabotage and explosives at the CIA's School of the Americas for an invasion of Cuba at the Bay of Pigs.[14] However, he is not listed by SOA Watch which has a database of all persons taking courses at the School."

into: By 1961 Posada had relocated to the United States where he was trained in sabotage and explosives by the CIA in the US army's Fort Benning for an invasion of Cuba at the Bay of Pigs.

Most of the information can be found in the declassified documents, that you can find in the National Security archive [28] --Desyman44 (talk) 19:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the lead

"Operative" is a silly and imprecise term, not fitting within the intelligence terminology. Was he a paid agent? An employee as a case officer or analyst? An ally? A liaison? "Operative" is more befitting a Robert Ludlum novel than a sober and serious encyclopedia. Ray^Talk 20:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

agree. Much better as it is now. Terrorist in this case is no weasel word, since it's confirmed by US institutions themselves as well as international organizations and international press.--Desyman44 (talk) 12:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

He was indeed a paid agent, though it's important to note that for many of his activities outside of the CIA (which, as far as we can tell, includes the Cubana Airliner bombing), his funding came from non-government sources (such as CANF members Pepe Hernandez and Jorge Mas Canosa; however, as the CANF and its members receive large subsidies from the NED, I suppose you could claim that was "government money" in origin). There are also some much-substantiated allegations that he has been a large-scale narcotrafficker, which would make him pretty well-endowed and able to fund operations independently. 173.3.41.6 (talk) 19:33, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

the entire introduction itself seems too long and overly-detailed/complex/mired-in-dates. Would recommend editing it way down while ensuring the detailed facts are available in the relevant sections of the abajoFidelarticle.joepa^T 20:24, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

"admitted to fighting for 'freedom' in Cuba..."

"Posada Carriles has always denied involvement in the airline bombing and the alleged plot against Castro in Panama, but has admitted to fighting for "freedom" in Cuba"

I would recommend to changing to something more along the lines of: "...but has characterized his involvement in Cuba as "fighting for freedom"

that is, quotes around the entire phrase rather than "freedom" to make it more neutral, and changing "admitted" to a more neutral word (stated? said?) that doesn't imply guilt. i think he's a genuine grade-a brainwashed CIA puppet murderer douchebag, but let's keep the language fair :) 71.214.92.33 (talk) 00:15, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Where is he now?

The article ends quite abruptly. I would like to see a section regarding what has happened to him since the trial and where he is living, and what his residency status is. Sadena (talk) 22:28, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Regarding his death

Here's a plausible scenario regarding Luis Posada's death: if Posada suddenly dies of old age and the Miami mayor holds a funeral service for him, a relative of one the four remaining members of Cuban Five may disrupt the funeral by pushing Posada's coffin away and shoving Posada's body into the Atlantic Ocean, and then he or she may hound and beat the prison guards and let the other members of the Cuban Five out of jail so that they can either return to Cuba or go to another country far from potential Cuban exile violence. Time may tell if this scenario happens, but it shouldn't ruled out because Stalin pushed away his wife's body while attending her funeral in November 1932. As a matter of fact, the Obama administration takes no position on whether or not Posada was a terrorist or a freedom fighter. 68.4.28.33 (talk) 02:22, 24 August 2012 (UTC)Vahe Demirjian

CIA in Lead

It seems a little strange that the second line of the lead refers to his association with the CIA (as it should) but there is no mention of the training and support he received from them in the rest of the lead. Since his arrests and trial and so forth is covered, and his training is covered in the body, it would seem logical that a couple of sentences about Fort Benning and whatnot are necessary. The single reference currently seems like a POV push, because it is not elaborated on. If there are no objections, I will attempt to fix this. Vanamonde93 (talk) 08:16, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:BLPN

POV concerns have been raised at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive224#Luis Posada Carriles. - Location (talk) 23:50, 1 July 2015 (UTC)