Originally posted by JCG
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"?
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"?
Actually, I tend not to criticize specifics, since civilian casualties will happen, unless they are blatent. I'm more critical of the methodolgy.
A couple of words:
1.Fernandinho
2.Laboratories.
1.Fernandinho
2.Laboratories.
Being in FARC territory doesn't make them FARC property.
Which are far from their only targets. But it probably doesn't matter as long as you're not in their potential sights.
Uhm, since I was the first person who brought it up, your point is asinine.
Urban bombings which kill indiscriminately, but I suppose that's just another case of "collateral damage" for some....
See my above comment.
Totally Fraternal Allies which have of course never hurt one another...even if HRW and AI disagree.

Even allies can fight. They aren't merely co-belligerents, given the high level of cross contaimination and cooperation. The fact that they sometimes fight has more to do with internal politics than the government turning a new leaf.
"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....

You really do have a penchant for putting words in people's mouths.
1. There are plenty of "paras" that have been formed and operate without such assistance.
Irrelevent.
Just as there are plenty of Colombian army soldiers that have never given such assistance.
Again irrelevent. The Columbian army is also riddled with FARC supporters. It doesn't mean that, over all, the role of the military in Columbia is not a severely repressive and brutal one.
But I guess it's better to just generalize and equate all of them in one big mass, eh?
It seems to work for you, doesn't it.
2. You act as if there was never any combat between the government and the paras, or that they can be conveniently ignored.
I never claimed it didn't happen. I just don't happen to think it's significant, given that most of the time the military is aiding them.
Yes, only "nominally".... so everything is fake and worthless and nothing ever changes not a single tiny bit
I haven't seen much significant change in Columbia, no. The last President tried something exceptional, but given that he couldn't keep the military under control, did it make any difference? I'd have to say no. You're gonna have to make a case for things getting better if you want me to believe it.
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......

It can't be much worse than things are now, and probably would be much better if history in Latin America is any guide, which it is.
Comment