By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The Trump administration implemented a policy of cutting off oil supplies to Cuba, including blocking shipments from Venezuela. This effort also involved threatening tariffs on any nations that continued to provide oil to the island. The stated goal of this policy was to exert pressure on the Cuban government.
Read the original article here
The recent tragic incident involving a boat shooting in Cuban waters has brought to light the death of an American citizen, a development confirmed by a U.S. official. This news has understandably sparked a flurry of reactions and questions, particularly surrounding the circumstances and the identities of those involved. It seems the narrative unfolding is far from simple, hinting at a complex web of motivations and potential actions that led to this fatal encounter.
One prevailing sentiment is that the individuals on the boat may have been engaged in illicit activities. Whispers of the boat being stolen, coupled with the assertion that they allegedly fired upon Cuban forces within Cuban territorial waters, paint a picture of a group that was not only on the wrong side of the law but also actively confronting sovereign authorities. The implication here is that their actions, irrespective of their nationality, placed them in a highly precarious and dangerous situation, and their survival might have been less likely under such confrontational circumstances.
Furthermore, there’s a strong suggestion that the individuals might have been involved in attempts to carry out attacks within Cuba. Reports of finding guns, bombs, and other equipment on board fuel this theory, leading some to believe that this was more than just a clandestine journey; it may have been a premeditated mission to disrupt or harm. The mention of the CIA in this context, and the idea that they might be “getting sloppy,” reflects a cynical view of intelligence agencies potentially orchestrating or being involved in such operations. The historical context of U.S.-Cuba relations, specifically the Bay of Pigs invasion, is frequently evoked, suggesting a recurring pattern of covert actions and their unfortunate consequences.
The reaction to this news has also highlighted a perceived hypocrisy regarding the use of force. Many are questioning why it’s deemed acceptable for the U.S. to engage in aggressive actions, such as firing upon speedboats in international waters, while expressing outrage when an American citizen is killed in a similar, albeit reversed, scenario. This line of thinking points to a double standard, where the U.S. appears to reserve the right to project force globally but is less tolerant when similar actions are taken against its own citizens, especially when those citizens may have initiated hostilities. The comparison to Americans killed by ICE, suggesting a lack of concern from the current administration for its citizens in certain situations, further amplifies this critique of perceived selective outrage.
There’s a significant undercurrent of skepticism directed towards official U.S. government narratives. Many question the veracity of reports, especially those emanating from U.S. sources, and seek independent verification of what truly transpired. The idea that this might have been a “three-letter agency op that got foiled by Cuba” suggests a deep-seated distrust in the transparency and motivations of intelligence bodies. The notion that Cuba might be “taking a page out of the Trump administration’s playbook” by utilizing similar tactics for dealing with perceived threats also enters the conversation, highlighting the cyclical nature of geopolitical strategies.
The possibility of the individuals being involved in drug smuggling is also raised, with a pointed reference to then-President Trump’s stance on dealing with smugglers. This interpretation frames the incident as a consequence of attempted illegal trafficking, with Cuban forces acting to intercept what they deemed a threat. The underlying sentiment here is that engaging in such high-risk activities, particularly in another nation’s territory and against its authorities, invites severe repercussions.
Ultimately, the commentary surrounding the death of the American citizen in the Cuba boat shooting is multifaceted, touching upon themes of national sovereignty, the ethics of intervention, the role of intelligence agencies, and the complexities of international relations. It reflects a populace grappling with a difficult event, seeking answers and offering a range of interpretations, from outright condemnation of the actions of those on the boat to suspicion of U.S. government involvement and a critique of its foreign policy. The repeated invocation of the Bay of Pigs suggests that the historical shadow of failed U.S. interventions in Cuba continues to cast a long and ominous light on present-day events.