Simon Trinidad Captured

[pchang]

makes the world go 'round

Money is what makes it all possible. The side of peace and justice must have equal or greater resources than the side criminality or the whole society gets distorted and destroyed. Drugs are the biggest distorter in Columbia. If those resources could somehow be incorporated into the structure supporting the rule of law, the other criminal factions would quickly be defeated.

[JCG]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Tripledoc

I don't think so. Because he after all represents the state. In fact your loyalty to that concept reveals your grotesque ideology.

Thanks for the "compliment" and for pulling rabbits out of your hat.

Everything the state does is, if not right, then somehow on the way to being fixed. I note you say Columbia 'needs a ton of reforms.' Yet don't you think that there is perhaps a reason why these reforms have not been made?

Lots of reasons, but after reading the rest of your message......guess it's pointless to try and have a civilized debate with someone who keeps using veiled (and not so veiled) insults and unfounded accusations against you.

It is as if this is due to some unfortunate accident, which can be fixed by the present government,

No, not by the present government.

and that the present policy of expropriating the poor for the benefit of the already filthy rich is in fact not a part of a very deliberate plan.

I don't believe in conspiracy theories, thank you very very much. Not regarding Colombia, not regarding Iraq, not regarding almost anything else.

I think you underestimate your ideological allies.

I am the ideological ally of no one, FYI.

It must be some sort of deficient racism on your part, since after all they are only Indians, aren't they? Except the upper class.

Thanks for the second "compliment". Your kindess is fully noted.

It's funny that several of my acquaintances would indeed qualify as so-called "Indians" though....but I guess that doesn't matter either.

Then you are horrified by the evidently stated goal of the FARC to bring down the state.

I'd have no problem if the FARC would just "bring down the state" or the current government. My problem is with the FACT that they would bring down everything else that smells "freedom" and "democracy" down with it and will replace it with a stalinist/castrist police state.

This I don't understand. Of course it is. FARC is a revolutionary movement. In order to finance their arms purchases they are only doing what western Capitalist powers have done for ages. Controlling the drug trade. Why should FARC be more moral in their actions in achieving their aims? This would surely be self-defeating.

I presume you are of the Marxist Revolutionary tradition then, for which "the ends justify the means".

Then you heap on accusations, but no evidence, that the FARC is guilty of atrocites too, which no doubt they are.

So what was your point here again?

I would still say that if the poor man kills, steals and rapes this is an indefinately lesser crime than when the rich man does. This is because were the former is an act of desperation, the latter is based on greed and arrogance, which as you know is somewhat sinful, yet so dearly presented as virtuous in the corrupt societies of today.

Unfortunately, I believe in equality before the law. A crime is a crime.

Now if it was not because certain Western governments are actively involved in supporting the Columbian government, Columbia would evidently fairly soon turn Communist.

Not going to argue the premise....but the prevention of such an outcome is far from a bad thing.

One could ask if it would not make better sense to simply cut military support to Columbia and let the Columbians decide the issue for themselves?

As long as you would also cut back on drug purchases, go for it.

Originally posted by Tripledoc
Democratically elected you say. That might be, and surely the AUC (fascist paramilitary group) must be satisified by this. Their numbers have risen exponentially the last two years, and as this article states they have even been promised amnesty for their crimes against human rights

1.Nice to know that you get your info from sensationalist websites/tabloids, to put it vlightly.

2. Hold your horses on that "amnesty" accusations as

a) Nothing has, as of today, been legally decided regarding it and there has been a good amount of pressure and debate both inside and outside Colombia calling for serious modifications of the original project.

b) Even a partial pardon for SOME of their crimes would be no different than the pardons that are enjoyed by both current and past demobilized guerrillas.

Originally posted by Buck Birdseed
Hey, wait a second. THERE AREN'T ANY. No trade unions, no political parties near the centre, no willing reformers who represent the population against the dangerous elites.

So Colombia continues to live in the 80s-early 90s, trapped in an eternal loop with no way out, eh?

Too bad it's not looking like that, though it's interesting to know that you don't really check news too often....

[chequita guevara]

You seem to have a problem with the comprehension of history and the fact that drug money is only a part of the problem. Drug money only became a factor in the late Seventies, the war started in the late Fifties. The same causes then are still behind the war, the ruling class using the government to crush everything that stands in their way.

If you took drug money out of the equation or simply moved it from the rulers of Columbia to their government, you would change nothing. All that would happen is that the FARC would lose some of its funding, leaving the people of Columbia at the mercy of the government yet again.

Historically, the more money the govermnet of Columbia has recieved from the U.S., the worse it has behaved towards its own people. Giving it the drug money would only allow it to free itself from what little restraint the U.S. occassionally attaches to the military aid.

Try and understand this very simply point. It is the government of Columbia that is doing most of the killing, most of the torture, and most of the driving people off the land. They are the enemy of the Columbian people.

[pchang]

A criminal government is not part of a structure that supports the rule of law.

[yaroslav]

Well, I fail to understand who people as sensible and smart as chevizt guevara are defending the FARCs. They're nothing but drug-dealers since many years ago... The best thing that could happen in Colombia is to get the Paramilitares and Guerrilla people either demobilized or jailed. Some paramilitares are demobilizing right now, and although Uribe has been acused to be a paramilitares' friend it doesn't seem that they're getting a "special treatment". I hope that in the future, the FARC, the ELN and the paramilitares will be defeated and the democratically elected goverment will take again control over all Colombia.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by pchang
A criminal government is not part of a structure that supports the rule of law.

That's really irrelevent. How do you get rid of a criminal government? Well, it certainly isn't by supporting it. When a government really wants to stay in power it's very difficult to remove it. The only way to do so is through force of arms.

JCG, considering the type of economy and government the FARC set up in the areas of Colmbia they ruled, it's unlikely to be a classic Marxist state. More likely it will be something more mixed as we saw in Nicaragua. I wouldn't be too keen on their implimentation of democracy, but they can't do much worse the the murderous farce of a democracy they have now. Maybe if it was Sendero Luminoso, but the FARC is not a Maoist organization.

[Buck Birdseed]

Originally posted by JCG
So Colombia continues to live in the 80s-early 90s, trapped in an eternal loop with no way out, eh?

Too bad it's not looking like that, though it's interesting to know that you don't really check news too often....

Pop quiz: How many trade unionists were killed in Colombia in 2002? Exclude other paramilitary political killings, plus the 5000 or so "morality murders" they commit each year (killing of street children, homosexuals, prostitutes etc.).

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by yaroslav
Well, I fail to understand who people as sensible and smart as chevizt guevara are defending the FARCs.

That's because you aren't paying attention. The Columbian government is one of the worst in the world. It is among the most murderous, and possilby even rivals the Hussein government in Iraq in sheer barbarity. The fact that it is nominally democratic is meaningless. The government of El Salvador was democratic, but that didn't stop it from murdering 70,000 people in the 1980s. The government of Guatemala was called democatic, didn't stop it from murdering hundreds of thousands of its own people.

Of course, the Columbian government is qualitiatively different, in that the government actually changes hands between parties. The amount of control it excercizes over the military is about equal to that in most of Latin America, which is to say barely at all. (And for this reason, Costa Rica abolished its military 60 years ago, and was the only Central American country not to experience a coup between now and then.)

Furthermore, as I noted, the FARC does not engage in drug dealing. At worst, they allow it to take place, at best, the tax the profits of the drug lords and protect the peasant farmers from being ripped off by them.

[JCG]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by chegitz guevara

I'll deal with the third one first. Yes, it does happen, very rarely, that the FARC engages in an attrocity...Given that the U.S. may have killed as many as some seven to nine thousand civilians in two wars in the past couple years, we aren't really in much of a position to criticize the FARC when "collateral damage" occurs, no matter how horrifying.

Doesn't stop you or a lot of people from critizing the "collateral damage" of US military actions, so I don't see why the FARC should be given a free pass. And that's far from the "only" case, and you know that, not even the most recent one...are they all supposed to be "accidents"?

As to number one, detailed analysis of the FARC-coca connection show that the FARC does not grow coca, nor do they engage directly in the coca trade. What they do do is protect coca farmers from the drug lords, ensure the drug lords pay a fair price for the coca leaves, and tax the drugs lords.

A couple of words:

1.Fernandinho

2.Laboratories.

"Defenders" of the people should not be engaging in such activity, unless you're kidnapping government members or members of the ruling familes.

Which are far from their only targets. But it probably doesn't matter as long as you're not in their potential sights.

In addition to these major charges, the FARC also is known to shang-hai people into service, use children as soldiers, and urban bombings.

Urban bombings which kill indiscriminately, but I suppose that's just another case of "collateral damage" for some....

(as the government and the paras are effectivly allies)

Totally Fraternal Allies which have of course never hurt one another...even if HRW and AI disagree.

The other side is the FARC.

"Which have never, ever driven peasants out of their land" and must be allowed to everything since they have "good intentions" that completely overrule any possible criticism.......but Bush must also have had perfectly "good intentions" in Iraq....

Originally posted by chegitz guevara Because the paras are basically a de facto force of the ruling classes of Columbia, and if not directly staffed with government soldiers (active and retirees), are actively aided by them, or turned a blind eye. The government transports the paras around the country and doesn't show up to protect villages when the paras are going on a rampage, though they show up ASAP when the FARC or ELN are in the area.

1. There are plenty of "paras" that have been formed and operate without such assistance.

Just as there are plenty of Colombian army soldiers that have never given such assistance.

But I guess it's better to just generalize and equate all of them in one big mass, eh?

2. You act as if there was never any combat between the government and the paras, or that they can be conveniently ignored. Not even the human rights groups claim that, which should tell you something.

The government in Columbia is one of the worst in the world, mitigated not a whit by the fact that it is nominally democratic.

Yes, only "nominally".... so everything is fake and worthless and nothing ever changes not a single tiny bit so it's better to just scrap & burn everything down to ashes and put up a "DEMOCRATIC BOLIVARIAN PEOPLE'S REPUPLIC OF COLOMBIA" headed by a GREAT LEADER......

[Spiffor]

JCG:
You have misunderstood Chegitz's post. Che is not like Tripledoc: he doesn't whitewash the FARC of its crimes, far from it.
But he argues that the FARC is the least scummy group involved in the Columbian war.

[Chilean President™]

Nice to see such a SOB captured. Great news for the Colombian people. Viva Colombia



PS: Why does some of you call the country Columbia?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Chilean President
PS: Why does some of you call the country Columbia?

Because I have no idea on how it is spelled in English

[JCG]

Spiffor: I'm not equating both of them, I just continue to disagree with some of his (Chegitz's) points, perhaps just as strongly.

Chilean President: They don't know how to spell correctly.... Nah, it's just that they're more used to seeing the name spelled like it's used in "British Columbia" and so on. It's still wrong though, Colombia is the official English term.

Originally posted by chegitz guevara possilby even rivals the Hussein government in Iraq in sheer barbarity.

Now that is exaggeration.

they can't do much worse the the murderous farce of a democracy they have now..

Can't really agree with you on this point, considering all the "revolutionary" purges, total press/media censorship and total political repression that will follow their rise to power.

That will make the situation just plain equal or maybe even worse.....but then the tables will turn, and all of you guys near/on the leftwing spectrum will say it's an "acceptable" situation.

Originally posted by Buck Birdseed
Pop quiz: How many trade unionists were killed in Colombia in 2002?

Plenty. Don't have the exact number handy, could dig it up if it really mattered...but, more importantly, even the "ESCUELA NACIONAL SINDICAL" (a sindicalist/union organization that collects such data) accepts that in 2003 that number was reduced between 65% and 80%.

Originally posted by chegitz guevara Drug money only became a factor in the late Seventies, the war started in the late Fifties.

Mid-60's if you want to be technical, unless you consider it an "extension" of La Violencia, which can arguably be traced back quite a long time too.

Historically, the more money the govermnet of Columbia has recieved from the U.S., the worse it has behaved towards its own people.

People which, during 2003, enjoyed 30% less kidnappings, 40% less forced displacement, and 5x less guerrilla "raids" or "tomas" of towns.

They are the enemy of the Columbian people.

You continue to totally equate the paras and the government, so that all accusation and info supplied by AI and HRW regarding the paras can be fully applied to the state, something which even they (human rights groups) do not do.

The enemy of the Colombian people is the conflict.

[yaroslav]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

That's because you aren't paying attention. The Columbian government is one of the worst in the world. It is among the most murderous, and possilby even rivals the Hussein government in Iraq in sheer barbarity.

Are you miximg paramilitares' barbarities and goverments' barbarities? The colombia's goverment is far away from having clean hands, but among the worsts govs in the world... I doubt so.

Let see what HRW says:

"Paramilitary groups allied within the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia (Autodefensas Unidas de Colombia, AUC) commit massacres, selective killings, and death threats. These groups operate with the tolerance and often support of units within Colombia's military. There are numerous and credible reports of joint military-paramilitary operations and the sharing of intelligence and propaganda. Throughout Colombia, paramilitaries continue to move uniformed and heavily armed troops unhindered past military installations.

Local officials, human rights groups, the public advocate's office, and even some police detachments regularly inform the appropriate authorities about credible threats by paramilitaries. Yet only rarely do military forces take effective action to stop paramilitary advances. While massacres, traditionally used by paramilitaries to spread terror, were less numerous in 2002 than in past years, the decrease appears to reflect a change in paramilitary tactics rather than a diminution in overall violence. Witnesses have described to Human Rights Watch how paramilitaries seized large groups of people, then killed individuals separately to avoid the incidents being recorded as massacres.

Of course, the Columbian government is qualitiatively different, in that the government actually changes hands between parties. The amount of control it excercizes over the military is about equal to that in most of Latin America, which is to say barely at all. (And for this reason, Costa Rica abolished its military 60 years ago, and was the only Central American country not to experience a coup between now and then.)

You say that the amount of control is ... barely at all. But you blame the goverment for the aid that the barely-controled military has given to the paramilitares.

Furthermore, as I noted, the FARC does not engage in drug dealing. At worst, they allow it to take place, at best, the tax the profits of the drug lords and protect the peasant farmers from being ripped off by them.

As to number one, detailed analysis of the FARC-coca connection show that the FARC does not grow coca, nor do they engage directly in the coca trade. What they do do is protect coca farmers from the drug lords, ensure the drug lords pay a fair price for the coca leaves, and tax the drugs lords. I know this may be too fine a point for you to distinguish, however. I don't think drugs should be illegal, so I don't have a problem with this.

Sorry but that goes against any single line of info I've read. Can I ask you to provide me a link or a source for that?

JCG:
You have misunderstood Chegitz's post. Che is not like Tripledoc: he doesn't whitewash the FARC of its crimes, far from it.
But he argues that the FARC is the least scummy group involved in the Columbian war.

IMHO he is wrong. The govt, democratically elected by the people, while not white-wash itself, it better that then terrorist paras and guerrillas.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Spiffor
JCG:
You have misunderstood Chegitz's post. Che is not like Tripledoc: he doesn't whitewash the FARC of its crimes, far from it.

That's exactly what he seems to be doing.