i'm not sorry

From Iranian twitter:

“First child soldier, 11 years old, killed at a Tehran checkpoint as the regime begins sending children into war and death.

11-year-old Alireza Jafari was killed at a Tehran checkpoint.

As manpower collapses, the Islamic Republic is pushing children into its ranks in an act that defies all morality and international law.

The victims of this child-killing regime keep growing. It is not just the children they kill, but also the children they send into war.”

IF YOU JUSTIFY THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC REGIME YOU SUPPORT THE USE OF CHILD SOLDIERS

Moving to the important matter. I want to state that I DO NOT agree with the repression of his regime or any authoritarian regime, as well as the demonization of queer people. I agree with you on that, and Fidel was totally wrong. However, after many apologies and reforms (still doesn’t justify it), Cuba has now one of the most progressive laws in regards of LQBTQI+ individuals in all Latin America. I myself am not homophobic nor transphobic by any means and didn’t want to be seen as so.

On the other hand, I would like to ask for your sources regarding some of the historical claims you mentioned, particularly the allegation that “blood was taken from prisoners and sold to North Vietnam” and the claim about “pigeon cages where prisoners could not sit or stand for years.” As far as I am aware, these are not supported by credible historical or academic sources and I would appreciate any reliable documentation if it exists because I also want to be informed on this subject.

About la Cabaña executions: I think you are completely ignoring the historical context. After the Cuban Revolution, trials and executions happened during a very unstable and tense time in the country. The old government under Batista had just been overthrown and the new revolutionary government was trying to take control and rebuild the country quickly. Many of the people who were tried and executed were linked to the Batista regime and were accused of serious crimes such us torture or violence against civilians. The new government said these trials were meant to bring justice for what happened under the dictatorship. These events are still very controversial today and historians debate whether they were morally correct or not. Even so, to understand what happened properly, it’s important to look at the wider context of a country coming out of a dictatorship, full of political chaos, anger and a strong desire for change. I’m not saying he was a saint, of course not, but it’s important to considerate the circumstances in which these events took place.

ressive" when it spent 60 years institutionalizing homophobia before finally catching up to the 21st century is a total inversion of history.

Now let's talk about the documented crimes of the regime you're defending.

The Blood Case: The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR/OAS) documented the extraction of blood from political prisoners before their execution (AS/Ser.L/V/II.17, Doc. 4, 1967). This blood was sold as a commodity the values are listed in the document.

The "Pigeon Cages": That's what we call the gavetas (drawers). These were cells that were 2 feet wide, 6 feet long, and 3 feet high. It was impossible for a adult to sit or stand on those. High-profile prisoners like Armando Valladares, who spent 22 years in the Cuban Gulag, and Hubert Matos provided detailed accounts of these "tomb-like" cells in Boniato prison those reports were corroborated by Amnesty International in the '70s and '80s. It's open source on the Internet quite easy to find.

La Cabaña: It’s hilarious that you claim these people were "tried." There is a total lack of documentation because there was no real trial. Che Guevara, who oversaw the La Cabaña famously stated:

"To send men to the firing squad, judicial proof is unnecessary... This is a revolution. We execute from moral conviction."

This is the opposite of justice. Look at the "Trial of the Airmen" (1959) when a court actually acquitted 43 airmen (who were revolutionaries by the way) due to a lack of evidence. Castro simply annulled the verdict and ordered a new trial with a jury he liked. That is the "Communist Democracy" you want? A system where the leader is the judge, the jury, and the executioner?

Many of those executed weren't just Batista officials; they were former revolutionaries who disagreed with the shift toward totalitarianism.

About LGBTQ+ rights: I think maybe we are using the word progressive in a different way. I agree that Cuba has a history of discrimination, including the first decades after the revolution, and that should not be ignored. However, I was talking about the current situation. Today, Cuba has legalized same-sex marriage, allows adoption for same-sex couples, access gender affirming care through the public heath system, and has legal protections against discrimination. Of course, this does not erase the past, but it is still important when we talk about the present. And yes, maybe they did it too late, homosexuality was decriminalized earlier than in some countries, though later than others. At the same time, I agree with you that limits on free protest and independent activism are a problem. (https://www.as-coa.org/articles/explainer-lgbt-rights-latin-america-and-caribbean & https://www.ipscuba.net/english-version/society/articles/sexual-citizenship-participation-and-emancipation-history-and-future-in-cuba/)

About the “blood extraction” claim: I know the document you mentioned but from what I have seen, historians are careful with this type of claim. There is a difference between reporting an allegation and having it confirmed by many independent and academic sources. That is why I asked for more evidence, not just one report. Even after searching on academic google, I still haven’t found reliable sources. There are mentions and reports during the Cold War (Bay of Pigs Invasion, specifically) but they’re not widely accepted by historians. As I said before, I did know the article and I do know cubanarchive.org. While it is a legitimate nonprofit, its work is deeply tied to US funded efforts to challenge the Cuban government. In the Marxists Internet Archive, they also do not have the speech in which Fidel Castro "publicy admits" these actions (according to the article you mentioned). Fidel Castro's speeches are very well documented and this one is not documented anywhere nor confirmed by historians, which I find really curious.

Regarding prison conditions and people like Armando Valladares or Hubert Matos: I am not saying that abuses did not happen. I know there were political prisoners and difficult conditions. But these are also personal testimonies and usually historians compare them with other sources before making final conclusions. So my point is not to deny it, but to be careful with extreme descriptions ('pigeon cages'). I repeat, I'm not in favor of the UMAP and I also don't think a socialist/communist regime needs a working camp AKA Gulag to "exist".

About La Cabaña: Jon Lee Anderson, journalist and author of Che Guevara: A Revolutionary Life (widely regarded as one of the most detailed biographical works on Che Guevara, based on extensive interviews and archival research), claims on this book that trials DID take place. I already said I do not consider those trials fair by modern standards. However, I think reducing the entire situation to “no trials existed at all” ignores the historical context of a country coming out of a dictatorship and a revolutionary period with very high political violence on both sides. Whether those actions were justified or not is still debated by historians, but it is not accurate to present it as a simple settled case. Here's an interview that contrasts your examples; while this is not a historical source, it shows another point of view. Also, I don't believe this could be classified as "communist democracy/justice", and I believe these actions were took by their own willpower and have nothing to do with Marxism (even though they were Marxists themselves). Sayng that this is how "democracy works under communsim" completely whitewashes the ideology/philosophy, normal trials under favorable and fair conditions can take place under socialism or communism. The tribunals at La Cabaña were revolutionary military courts created in a transitional post-war context after the fall of Batista. Whether one agrees with them or not, they were not a democratic judicial system in the modern sense, but rather emergency justice mechanisms used during a period of political instability.

Finally, I think it is important to separate well-supported facts from claims that may be exaggerated or not fully confirmed. We can criticize Fidel Castro and his government all you want, but it is better if the criticism is based on reliable and widely supported information and if we are critical with our opinions as well.

It’s incredibly convenient to dismiss the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) and the Cuba Archive as "US-funded" or "unverified." This is just tactic used to silence dissidents. You are essentially saying the testimonies of people who were actually in the cages don’t count because they aren’t "academic" enough for your taste. History isn't just found in a sanitized Marxist archive it’s written in the scars of the survivors. To call "pigeon cages" an "extreme description" is an insult to every political prisoner who spent years unable to stand up in them.

And the IACHR is not a US-founded agency; it is a principal, autonomous organ of the Organization of American States (OAS). Every major international body, including the UN, is funded by member states. By your logic, no international law or human rights report could ever be "reliable." It’s fascinating how "nuance" and "academic rigor" only appear when it’s time to minimize the atrocities of a Communist regime.

It’s actually hilarious that you’re citing Jon Lee Anderson, because his biography is the primary source for Che’s most disgusting views. Did you skip the chapters where Anderson documents Che calling Black people "indolent" and "unwashed"? Or the parts where he describes women as nothing more than cooks and seamstresses for the "real" soldiers? You are using a book that exposes him as a racist, misogynistic, cold-blooded killing machine to prove he was a "nuanced" hero. If Anderson is your "reliable source," then you’ve officially admitted your idol was a bigot who viewed the people he was "liberating" as inferior like the 14-year-old girl he cornered while trying to force himself on her because that's another thing he was into besides killing those who opposed him.

Regarding the La Cabaña trials the rule is simple: if the defense isn't allowed to defend the accused, it’s not a trial it’s a show. When the prosecutor and the judge are both appointed by the same executioner, calling it a "military court" is just a fancy way of describing state-sponsored murder. Anderson knows that, and deep down, you know that too.

You claim these actions have "nothing to do with Marxism," yet every single time Marxism is applied at scale, it requires this exact level of "transitional" violence to survive. Marx himself was very clear:

"There is only one way in which the murderous death agonies of the old society and the bloody birth throes of the new society can be shortened, simplified and concentrated, and that way is revolutionary terrorism."

Engels added later on that:

"A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is... it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire."

Violence is the foundation of Marxism. You can keep searching for a version of history that makes you comfortable in your fandom, but we weren't born yesterday. You can’t "separately" support Fidel Castro and ignore the blood on his hands. If you want to stand with a dictator, have the courage to admit you're okay with the cost. Don't hide behind "source criticism" to whitewash a graveyard.

We clearly have different views, and that’s fine, but I’m not interested in continuing this discussion.

The sources I gave you were not meant to support Castro, but to address specific claims. Also, I mentioned the Marxists Internet Archive simply because Fidel Castro’s speeches are documented there, not because it is an ideological platform “defending” him. It’s an archive of texts, not an opinion site.

As for the quotes you mentioned, they are real, but taken out of context. Marx and Engels were describing revolutionary situations, not defining violence as the foundation of all Marxist theory. Reducing it to that is an oversimplification.

Now tell me in what universe is inciting "revolutionary terrorism" acceptable? Please, enlighten us bc when Marx calls for terrorism and Engels demands "rifles, bayonets, and cannon" to "inspire terror," they are defining the mechanical requirements of their system. You cannot claim violence isn't the foundation of an ideology that literally calls for the "forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions." That’s not an oversimplification it’s a direct quote. As much as you want communism to be a peaceful ideology it isn't.

And claiming the Marxists Internet Archive is a neutral record-keeper is like saying the Vatican library has no interest in Catholicism. It is an ideological repository, and we both know it doesn't contain the whole truth. If your "reliable" research stops at the curated speeches of the dictators themselves it's just PR.

If you want to support a regime that killed millions you're free to do it but own it. Own the ideology you defend. You are defending a system that required violence and death to function so have the courage to stand by it don't try to rewrite history. Also calling the documented torture of people in the UMAPs and the starvation of millions "ideological and emotional" is a disgusting way to downplay human suffering. It isn’t "emotional" to state that 18,000 people were executed most without trails it’s a statistic. It isn't "ideological" to point out that Che Guevara was a racist and a predator those are facts found in the very biography you cited.

The medieval peasant I went back in time to give a bag of Doritos to, concerned: what terrible and powerful sorcerers they must have in your age, to be able to veil the vault of heaven itself from view, as you say

Me, sniffling: I didn’t realize, I can’t, it’s so much, I, I… are the chips good, at least?

Moving to the important matter. I want to state that I DO NOT agree with the repression of his regime or any authoritarian regime, as well as the demonization of queer people. I agree with you on that, and Fidel was totally wrong. However, after many apologies and reforms (still doesn’t justify it), Cuba has now one of the most progressive laws in regards of LQBTQI+ individuals in all Latin America. I myself am not homophobic nor transphobic by any means and didn’t want to be seen as so.

On the other hand, I would like to ask for your sources regarding some of the historical claims you mentioned, particularly the allegation that “blood was taken from prisoners and sold to North Vietnam” and the claim about “pigeon cages where prisoners could not sit or stand for years.” As far as I am aware, these are not supported by credible historical or academic sources and I would appreciate any reliable documentation if it exists because I also want to be informed on this subject.

About la Cabaña executions: I think you are completely ignoring the historical context. After the Cuban Revolution, trials and executions happened during a very unstable and tense time in the country. The old government under Batista had just been overthrown and the new revolutionary government was trying to take control and rebuild the country quickly. Many of the people who were tried and executed were linked to the Batista regime and were accused of serious crimes such us torture or violence against civilians. The new government said these trials were meant to bring justice for what happened under the dictatorship. These events are still very controversial today and historians debate whether they were morally correct or not. Even so, to understand what happened properly, it’s important to look at the wider context of a country coming out of a dictatorship, full of political chaos, anger and a strong desire for change. I’m not saying he was a saint, of course not, but it’s important to considerate the circumstances in which these events took place.

ressive" when it spent 60 years institutionalizing homophobia before finally catching up to the 21st century is a total inversion of history.

Now let's talk about the documented crimes of the regime you're defending.

The Blood Case: The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR/OAS) documented the extraction of blood from political prisoners before their execution (AS/Ser.L/V/II.17, Doc. 4, 1967). This blood was sold as a commodity the values are listed in the document.

The "Pigeon Cages": That's what we call the gavetas (drawers). These were cells that were 2 feet wide, 6 feet long, and 3 feet high. It was impossible for a adult to sit or stand on those. High-profile prisoners like Armando Valladares, who spent 22 years in the Cuban Gulag, and Hubert Matos provided detailed accounts of these "tomb-like" cells in Boniato prison those reports were corroborated by Amnesty International in the '70s and '80s. It's open source on the Internet quite easy to find.

La Cabaña: It’s hilarious that you claim these people were "tried." There is a total lack of documentation because there was no real trial. Che Guevara, who oversaw the La Cabaña famously stated:

"To send men to the firing squad, judicial proof is unnecessary... This is a revolution. We execute from moral conviction."

This is the opposite of justice. Look at the "Trial of the Airmen" (1959) when a court actually acquitted 43 airmen (who were revolutionaries by the way) due to a lack of evidence. Castro simply annulled the verdict and ordered a new trial with a jury he liked. That is the "Communist Democracy" you want? A system where the leader is the judge, the jury, and the executioner?

Many of those executed weren't just Batista officials; they were former revolutionaries who disagreed with the shift toward totalitarianism.

About LGBTQ+ rights: I think maybe we are using the word progressive in a different way. I agree that Cuba has a history of discrimination, including the first decades after the revolution, and that should not be ignored. However, I was talking about the current situation. Today, Cuba has legalized same-sex marriage, allows adoption for same-sex couples, access gender affirming care through the public heath system, and has legal protections against discrimination. Of course, this does not erase the past, but it is still important when we talk about the present. And yes, maybe they did it too late, homosexuality was decriminalized earlier than in some countries, though later than others. At the same time, I agree with you that limits on free protest and independent activism are a problem. (https://www.as-coa.org/articles/explainer-lgbt-rights-latin-america-and-caribbean & https://www.ipscuba.net/english-version/society/articles/sexual-citizenship-participation-and-emancipation-history-and-future-in-cuba/)

About the “blood extraction” claim: I know the document you mentioned but from what I have seen, historians are careful with this type of claim. There is a difference between reporting an allegation and having it confirmed by many independent and academic sources. That is why I asked for more evidence, not just one report. Even after searching on academic google, I still haven’t found reliable sources. There are mentions and reports during the Cold War (Bay of Pigs Invasion, specifically) but they’re not widely accepted by historians. As I said before, I did know the article and I do know cubanarchive.org. While it is a legitimate nonprofit, its work is deeply tied to US funded efforts to challenge the Cuban government. In the Marxists Internet Archive, they also do not have the speech in which Fidel Castro "publicy admits" these actions (according to the article you mentioned). Fidel Castro's speeches are very well documented and this one is not documented anywhere nor confirmed by historians, which I find really curious.

Regarding prison conditions and people like Armando Valladares or Hubert Matos: I am not saying that abuses did not happen. I know there were political prisoners and difficult conditions. But these are also personal testimonies and usually historians compare them with other sources before making final conclusions. So my point is not to deny it, but to be careful with extreme descriptions ('pigeon cages'). I repeat, I'm not in favor of the UMAP and I also don't think a socialist/communist regime needs a working camp AKA Gulag to "exist".

About La Cabaña: Jon Lee Anderson, journalist and author of Che Guevara: A Revolutionary Life (widely regarded as one of the most detailed biographical works on Che Guevara, based on extensive interviews and archival research), claims on this book that trials DID take place. I already said I do not consider those trials fair by modern standards. However, I think reducing the entire situation to “no trials existed at all” ignores the historical context of a country coming out of a dictatorship and a revolutionary period with very high political violence on both sides. Whether those actions were justified or not is still debated by historians, but it is not accurate to present it as a simple settled case. Here's an interview that contrasts your examples; while this is not a historical source, it shows another point of view. Also, I don't believe this could be classified as "communist democracy/justice", and I believe these actions were took by their own willpower and have nothing to do with Marxism (even though they were Marxists themselves). Sayng that this is how "democracy works under communsim" completely whitewashes the ideology/philosophy, normal trials under favorable and fair conditions can take place under socialism or communism. The tribunals at La Cabaña were revolutionary military courts created in a transitional post-war context after the fall of Batista. Whether one agrees with them or not, they were not a democratic judicial system in the modern sense, but rather emergency justice mechanisms used during a period of political instability.

Finally, I think it is important to separate well-supported facts from claims that may be exaggerated or not fully confirmed. We can criticize Fidel Castro and his government all you want, but it is better if the criticism is based on reliable and widely supported information and if we are critical with our opinions as well.

It’s incredibly convenient to dismiss the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) and the Cuba Archive as "US-funded" or "unverified." This is just tactic used to silence dissidents. You are essentially saying the testimonies of people who were actually in the cages don’t count because they aren’t "academic" enough for your taste. History isn't just found in a sanitized Marxist archive it’s written in the scars of the survivors. To call "pigeon cages" an "extreme description" is an insult to every political prisoner who spent years unable to stand up in them.

And the IACHR is not a US-founded agency; it is a principal, autonomous organ of the Organization of American States (OAS). Every major international body, including the UN, is funded by member states. By your logic, no international law or human rights report could ever be "reliable." It’s fascinating how "nuance" and "academic rigor" only appear when it’s time to minimize the atrocities of a Communist regime.

It’s actually hilarious that you’re citing Jon Lee Anderson, because his biography is the primary source for Che’s most disgusting views. Did you skip the chapters where Anderson documents Che calling Black people "indolent" and "unwashed"? Or the parts where he describes women as nothing more than cooks and seamstresses for the "real" soldiers? You are using a book that exposes him as a racist, misogynistic, cold-blooded killing machine to prove he was a "nuanced" hero. If Anderson is your "reliable source," then you’ve officially admitted your idol was a bigot who viewed the people he was "liberating" as inferior like the 14-year-old girl he cornered while trying to force himself on her because that's another thing he was into besides killing those who opposed him.

Regarding the La Cabaña trials the rule is simple: if the defense isn't allowed to defend the accused, it’s not a trial it’s a show. When the prosecutor and the judge are both appointed by the same executioner, calling it a "military court" is just a fancy way of describing state-sponsored murder. Anderson knows that, and deep down, you know that too.

You claim these actions have "nothing to do with Marxism," yet every single time Marxism is applied at scale, it requires this exact level of "transitional" violence to survive. Marx himself was very clear:

"There is only one way in which the murderous death agonies of the old society and the bloody birth throes of the new society can be shortened, simplified and concentrated, and that way is revolutionary terrorism."

Engels added later on that:

"A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is... it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire."

Violence is the foundation of Marxism. You can keep searching for a version of history that makes you comfortable in your fandom, but we weren't born yesterday. You can’t "separately" support Fidel Castro and ignore the blood on his hands. If you want to stand with a dictator, have the courage to admit you're okay with the cost. Don't hide behind "source criticism" to whitewash a graveyard.

Moving to the important matter. I want to state that I DO NOT agree with the repression of his regime or any authoritarian regime, as well as the demonization of queer people. I agree with you on that, and Fidel was totally wrong. However, after many apologies and reforms (still doesn’t justify it), Cuba has now one of the most progressive laws in regards of LQBTQI+ individuals in all Latin America. I myself am not homophobic nor transphobic by any means and didn’t want to be seen as so.

On the other hand, I would like to ask for your sources regarding some of the historical claims you mentioned, particularly the allegation that “blood was taken from prisoners and sold to North Vietnam” and the claim about “pigeon cages where prisoners could not sit or stand for years.” As far as I am aware, these are not supported by credible historical or academic sources and I would appreciate any reliable documentation if it exists because I also want to be informed on this subject.

About la Cabaña executions: I think you are completely ignoring the historical context. After the Cuban Revolution, trials and executions happened during a very unstable and tense time in the country. The old government under Batista had just been overthrown and the new revolutionary government was trying to take control and rebuild the country quickly. Many of the people who were tried and executed were linked to the Batista regime and were accused of serious crimes such us torture or violence against civilians. The new government said these trials were meant to bring justice for what happened under the dictatorship. These events are still very controversial today and historians debate whether they were morally correct or not. Even so, to understand what happened properly, it’s important to look at the wider context of a country coming out of a dictatorship, full of political chaos, anger and a strong desire for change. I’m not saying he was a saint, of course not, but it’s important to considerate the circumstances in which these events took place.

ressive" when it spent 60 years institutionalizing homophobia before finally catching up to the 21st century is a total inversion of history.

Now let's talk about the documented crimes of the regime you're defending.

The Blood Case: The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR/OAS) documented the extraction of blood from political prisoners before their execution (AS/Ser.L/V/II.17, Doc. 4, 1967). This blood was sold as a commodity the values are listed in the document.

The "Pigeon Cages": That's what we call the gavetas (drawers). These were cells that were 2 feet wide, 6 feet long, and 3 feet high. It was impossible for a adult to sit or stand on those. High-profile prisoners like Armando Valladares, who spent 22 years in the Cuban Gulag, and Hubert Matos provided detailed accounts of these "tomb-like" cells in Boniato prison those reports were corroborated by Amnesty International in the '70s and '80s. It's open source on the Internet quite easy to find.

La Cabaña: It’s hilarious that you claim these people were "tried." There is a total lack of documentation because there was no real trial. Che Guevara, who oversaw the La Cabaña famously stated:

"To send men to the firing squad, judicial proof is unnecessary... This is a revolution. We execute from moral conviction."

This is the opposite of justice. Look at the "Trial of the Airmen" (1959) when a court actually acquitted 43 airmen (who were revolutionaries by the way) due to a lack of evidence. Castro simply annulled the verdict and ordered a new trial with a jury he liked. That is the "Communist Democracy" you want? A system where the leader is the judge, the jury, and the executioner?

Many of those executed weren't just Batista officials; they were former revolutionaries who disagreed with the shift toward totalitarianism.