The media omits Cuba’s role

There are truths, and half-truths, and sometimes what is left out becomes a lie by omission.


During the past few of days, I’ve read numerous articles (here, here, here) about Mondays protest against FARC. The articles correctly point out the organization’s terrorist activities, and the terrible loss of life Columbians have suffered at the hands of FARC.
Also mentioned in the articles is the validation felt from the international display of solidarity, and the potential negative fallout to FARC supporter hugo chavez.
The following from an Diario Las Americas editorial sums it up well:

In Miami, as well as in Orlando, to mention only two cities in Florida, there were impressive demonstrations that bear witness to the solidarity that exists between Colombians and individuals from other countries such as Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela who joined this worldwide protest which, actually, is unprecedented. Obviously, in other cities of the United States where great numbers of Colombians live, the demonstrations were equally significant.
In some way or another this worldwide movement that goes from Caracas to Toronto, from Paris to México, as well as many other cities in the five continents, will gravitate on the minds of those who for any reason whatsoever have influence with the FARC, especially the government of Venezuela, whose President, Lt. Col. Hugo Chávez expresses its solidarity with FARC. Even though this ruler does not respond normally to international reactions, it is necessary to observe the effect that this significant and unique world reaction will have on his opinions.
In the midst of so much sorrow that the noble people of Colombia have been feeling for so many years, what happened on Monday is a satisfactory proof of national solidarity with international support.

The articles point out the potential fallout for supporters of FARC, and correctly name Venezuela’s chavez, but missing in every single article I could find is any mention of the castro regimes decades long involvement with FARC.

The castro’s regimes close relationship with the Colombian terrorists has been extensively documented, and it is highly improbable than a guerrilla terrorist organization engaged in a fierce conflict with the Colombian government could have the type of international contacts it now has without the aid of a friendly state. castro’s long-term relationships with the Colombians and Middle Eastern terrorist groups of diverse ideological tendencies as well as his unremitting hostility toward the United States and its allies would serve as a natural catalyst for these links.

Why isn’t Cuba’s support for FARC included in the reporting? Isn’t that akin to a report on organized crime that omits mention of the Mafia?