Hey, if you want to pay ransom to the captors, that's your business.
Posted by: Henry Louis Gomez Sunday, September 21, 2008 at 04:54 PM
Had the allies paid ransom for the Jews of Hungary a lot of lives would have been saved, that's what this is about, saving Cuban life.
Posted by: Vana Sunday, September 21, 2008 at 06:47 PM
Vana is absolutely right. And what happened to the Jews who were ransomed? They lived. Pope Pius XII redeemed the Jews of Rome with gold. They were not deported or sent to the death camps, the only Jewish community in Europe that survived the Holocaust intact and in situ. The communists have never forgiven Pius for recognizing that it was better to throw gold to the Nazis than Jews into ovens.
Saving human life is the paramount concern of man, always. Money cannot be put to a higher purpose than to ransom the lives of the innocent. The parent whose child is kidnapped does not haggle with the abductors. He pays what they demand and hopes for the best. We should think the parent an even greater monster than the kidnapper if he were to value his money or some arcane "principle" above the life of his child. Enriching the kidnapper is immaterial when the life of the child is at stake. Even punishing him should await the deliverance of the child lest by rescuing the ransom one should lose the child.
Incredibly, Val Prieto has stated in the past that he would not ransom the child, or, leastwise, his wife if she were kidnapped and in danger of losing her life:
"If some creep grabbed your wife and a gun point told you 'Give me money or Ill shoot her' and you gave him money and he told you 'Give me more money or Ill
shoot her' and you gave him more money and he once again tells you 'Give me money or ill shoot her.' Where does it end? What impetus does that creep have to free your wife, given that each and every time he asks you for money you give it to him?"
In this example Val's wife stands for the long-suffering Cuban people and the "creep" for Castro.
As I commented at the time:
"Val would refuse to give the 'creep' holding his wife at gunpoint more money because he (the 'creep') is too greedy. Better a dead spouse than to be 'fleeced' by such a lowlife. It's a matter of principle. His wife's brains splattered on the street are preferable to succumbing to blackmail or emptying out his bank account.I may have underestimated Val, or, at least, underestimated the cupidity of men. For last week Secretary of Commerce Carlos Gutiérrez seconded his position that the Cuban people are not worth ransoming.
"I pity his wife. I pity the Cuban people if their fate were ever in Val's hands. Thank God it never will be."
If you're looking to the Jews as a model for Cuba Masada is more appropriate.
The heroic story of Masada and its dramatic end attracted many explorers to the Judean desert in attempts to locate the remains of the fortress. The site was identified in 1842, but intensive excavations took place only in 1963-65, with the help of hundreds of enthusiastic volunteers from Israel and from many foreign countries, eager to participate in this exciting archeological venture. To them and to Israelis, Masada symbolizes the determination of the Jewish people to be free in its own land.
Posted (at Uncommon Sense) by: Ziva Sahl, Monday, September 22, 2008 at 10:55 PM
I tried to post this at Uncommon Sense but for some reason my Typepad ID doesn't stick.
Ziva answers Vana's good point by bringing up the story of Masada as "more appropriate". What? Masada, seriously? The only solution for Cubans is to commit mass suicide?
At the beginning of the Special Period Castro used the siege of Masada in a speech as a parable for Cuba's resistance to the embargo. I'm not being facetious (google it) and Ziva probably doesn't know this, so I'm not going to accuse her of using "the same rethoric as the regime" like they do in their lynching of Masferrer. But it does show that their ideal scenario is a Cuba empty of Cubans.
Posted (at RCAB) by: Alex (of Miami & Beyond), 9/23/2008 11:20 AM