Another march

Sr Tertius says on Feb 6, 2008, 15:45:

March 6. 11 am. Plaza de Bolivar.

"When the finger points to the moon, the fool looks at the finger" (Chinese proverb)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

SiV says on Feb 6, 2008, 17:19:

I'll be marching, but I bet it won't get a quarter of the press coverage from RCN and Caracol as the anti-Farc march. I wonder why?

Stultórum númere infinitum est.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

goin_south says on Feb 6, 2008, 17:22:

so, in a way,... this has a different focus... yet,... still a common denominator.
I'm jus guessin, it won't have the same coverage or attendance, because it's not what "the masses of people" see as the major, the biggest problem.

Please, Don't attack me. I understand.

I'm jus saying....., Right or wrong.. it's not what 'the people' see as the major problems...but, more as a result of ... what they see as 'the major' problem.

nothin I say is to be takn for my words, but rather for the words of Sailor Jerry.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

tejasmarcos says on Feb 6, 2008, 17:26:

i'll be there, man.

trying to walk a straight line on sour mash and cheap wine...

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Sr Tertius says on Feb 6, 2008, 18:00:

The numbers I got from the President's office (Observatorio Presidencial de los Derechos Humanos) counts an average of 600 deaths per year from AUC massacres only in the 1993-2006. In the 2002-2005 period, the number of deaths in AUC massacres diminished from 680 to 252 per year according to the same source, but at some point (not sure exactly when) the government changed the definition of massacre. Unfortunately I can't find the number of targeted assassinations, but probably if you add them to the massacres, you may get about 600 deaths per year. I think someone once posted a link in PBH with that information, but I can't find it.

That's a damn holocaust. But I agree with GS, it hasn't received a fraction of the attention that the abuses from FARC receive. I don't condone the latter, of course, but I think that the former are much worse of a problem, not just because of sheer magnitude but because it often involves government officials.

"When the finger points to the moon, the fool looks at the finger" (Chinese proverb)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

slguy says on Feb 6, 2008, 18:24:

Always with the disclaimers, SrT.

"I don't condone the latter, of course, but I think that the former are much worse of a problem"

Seems like you'd eventually admit your fondness for FARC, instead of always adding your minor disclaimers.

But setting that aside, I'm not certain that just because there may have been some government officials' involvement, this necessarily makes the paras' actions so much more terrible. I'd venture to guess that some folks that live in areas where the paras took control would beg to differ with you about which group was worse, FARC or AUC. Both of them terrible tragedies - but one side, while admittedly animalistic at times, did bring some semblence of order to chaos on occasion. And only one of them has a 40 year track record of atrocities- the other disbanded as an organization.

BTW- of the 600 per year, I wonder how many were actually FARC or their sympathizers? Anyone have any citations about this?

Before you throw me out, make sure I pay my bar tab

0 funny, 0 helpful.

tasco66 says on Feb 7, 2008, 04:39:

The pro-Farc camp is in disarray after the success of the anti-Farc march. All they could do was come up with this very original idea.

They don’t care about the victims of the paracos. This is just another attempt to stem their declining support.

The trouble with free elections is, you never know who is going to win (Leonid Brezhnev)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

tasco66 says on Feb 7, 2008, 04:43:

“I'll be marching, but I bet it won't get a quarter of the press coverage from RCN and Caracol as the anti-Farc march. I wonder why?"

Because they won’t get a quarter of the people of the anti-Farc march, because everyone knows the paracos were a direct consequence of the Farc, because there is a demobilization process of the paracos.

I don't condone the paracos, of course, but I think that the Farc are much worse of a problem, as do most Colombians.

The trouble with free elections is, you never know who is going to win (Leonid Brezhnev)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

webmanco says on Feb 7, 2008, 04:46:

No hay extremo cierto o verdadero, porque los extremos opacan, enruedan, (lavan cerebros) verdades. Yotas

0 funny, 0 helpful.

billyb says on Feb 7, 2008, 06:37:

Cassini, are you ever going to post soemthing even mildly intelligent? You are an embarrasment to your "cause".

"All I want to know is where I'm going to die, so I never go there" Unkown (at least to me) wise man.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

tasco66 says on Feb 7, 2008, 07:57:

Cassini didn't you read my disclaimer a la Sr T?

I don't condone the paracos, of course, but I think that the Farc are much worse of a problem.

Happy now?

"to be against paramilitares is to be pro FARC" does not have to be, but sure is in your case.

The trouble with free elections is, you never know who is going to win (Leonid Brezhnev)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

podborski says on Feb 7, 2008, 08:24:

here's my gringo point of view on these marches.

The anti FARC march sends a message to all the supporters of FARC, like foreign heads of state (Chavez) and european 'intellectuals'.

Where's that support for AUC? Does it exist? I'm asking seriously, maybe it does? All I know is I have never seen it.

I'm all for opposing violence and corruption and demonstrating it, but I can see why the anti FARC march is far more relevant.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

podborski says on Feb 7, 2008, 12:34:

I figured there is some support for AUC inside colombia, I've heard a few colombians tell me that the paras arose just to defend themselves against FARC. I have no idea what the real story is, all I am saying is that I don't see any political support, or intellectuals in foreign universities singing the praises of the paras.

Can you imagine what the reaction would be if some foreign head of state stood up and said the paras should be recognized as an insurgent army with a political goal?

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Lucas Freley says on Feb 7, 2008, 12:57:

Don't forget the "Elenos", well-known as the ELN. I think that there are a lot of people that doesn't know about the existence of this local groups. The problem with this "paras" is that they are in full and complete control of certains areas of Colombia. Hope this kind of marchs contribute to something.

Hoy que estás esplendida y que todo lo iluminas, demos un paseo, vuelta por el Universo (Gustavo Cerati)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

SiV says on Feb 7, 2008, 13:04:

What do you mean some support? It's not that the AUC have just support, they have real power, political power in the govt. Mancuso himself said that 33% of Congress had been vetted and OKed by the paras as being sympathetic to their "cause".

There's quite a common saying that goes like this:

Uribe is not a paramiltary, but most paramilitaries are Uribistas.

Why do you think the AUC was so eager to disarm? Because the Uribe govt. is relatively sympathetic to them, and will be easier on them. The thing is there is very little about the Truth Process in the media, at least after the mass demobilizations (is that a word in English!?). Little attention has been given to the victims, reparation, returning land to IDPs, etc.

This march won't receive much media attention, and therefore there won't be nearly as many people attending. The media produces consciousness and also manufactures consent, that is, not only does it reflect public opinion, it also shapes it. In Colombia, the two biggest networks, RCN and Caracol, reported to reach 97% of the population, are owned or controlled by people and groups sympathetic to the Uribe administration and with shared economic interests.

Stultórum númere infinitum est.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

billyb says on Feb 7, 2008, 13:33:

The paras also disbanded because as they saw it Colombia finally had a president willing to take the fight to the FARC.

"All I want to know is where I'm going to die, so I never go there" Unkown (at least to me) wise man.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

SiV says on Feb 7, 2008, 20:45:

True enough, BillyB, although it is debatable to what point the AUC have disbanded. Many of the financial and political networks remain intact, as well as the narcotrafficking via the Black Eagles, and we don't really know how many weapons remain in commision.

Stultórum númere infinitum est.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

billyb says on Feb 8, 2008, 06:05:

That's the thing SIV, it seems like every narco is designating his private army a para block. It's probably so they can get easy terms from the governament to "demobilize" when things get really hot

"All I want to know is where I'm going to die, so I never go there" Unkown (at least to me) wise man.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Sr Tertius says on Feb 8, 2008, 16:24:

I've come to the conclusion that a march against paramilitarism and its influence on government is more necessary than ever. Maybe the international community needed to learn about what FARC is about (I doubt it), but, from my impressions here in PBH, I think far more people need to learn about the paracos. Maybe that'll mitigate the profundly offensive imbecilities that slguy writes, and the factual inaccuracies from billyb (the paracos a response to FARC? Not even Uribe believes that one... he does believe though, that there is no more paramilitarism in Colombia... and in unicorns too, I think).

"When the finger points to the moon, the fool looks at the finger" (Chinese proverb)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

goin_south says on Feb 8, 2008, 18:34:

armchair Qb's and politicians,.. a dime a dozen and all full of hot air.

nothin I say is to be takn for my words, but rather for the words of Sailor Jerry.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

podborski says on Feb 8, 2008, 19:24:

I can only go by my personal knowledge. I have maybe 25 colombian friends. Virtually all of them have a horror story relating to FARC, murder, rape, kidnaping, etc.

Never yet heard a bad word about the paracos.

You can't believe the newspapers right sr t? So I'm just going by what colombians tell me.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

billyb says on Feb 8, 2008, 20:03:

"The paras also disbanded because as they saw it Colombia finally had a president willing to take the fight to the FARC."

T, above is my quote. Do you intend to have us believe that the paras would have disbanded if Gaviria was president at the time instead of Uribe? Please.

"All I want to know is where I'm going to die, so I never go there" Unkown (at least to me) wise man.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

SiV says on Feb 9, 2008, 06:35:

Pod, could be that it says more about the circles you run in. Do all of your friends have large fincas and stables, a bevy of servants, drive round in huge 4x4s. . ?

Actually, that's not fair. I know a couple of poor campesinos who were kidnapped. But the point is there: it depends on who you speak to. Rich businessmen, ranchers and landowners aren't generally going to slag the AUC off, as they are the ones who finance(d?) them (along with narcotrafficking, off course, though I never heard the phrase narco-paramilitares on the news). Ask some indigenous, afro-Colombians, campesinos with strategically-placed (for business, that is) land and I imagine you may well hear some complaints.

Or maybe not. They may well be too scared of getting chainsawed up or nailed to trees that they may not speak.

Stultórum númere infinitum est.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

podborski says on Feb 9, 2008, 08:04:

I am sure you guys are right, I spend almost all my time in Bogota, and generally my friends would be upper estrato. The stories I heard were from my spanish teachers at la javeriana for example, plus various acquaintances who would be professionals (lawyers,accountants etc).

I remain suspicious of the motives of those who always try to undermine any criticism of FARC by saying the paracos are worse.

It might even be true, but it's still meaningless. It's like I said Hitler is a bad guy and someone pops in and says yeah but we shouldn't talk about him, because Stalin was worse.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

pedro (☼Travelguide writer) says on Feb 9, 2008, 08:22:

pedro (☼Travelguide writer) says on Feb 9, 2008, 08:28:

slguy says on Feb 9, 2008, 09:56:

"It might even be true, but it's still meaningless. It's like I said Hitler is a bad guy and someone pops in and says yeah but we shouldn't talk about him, because Stalin was worse."

exactly, pod. how many times here has criticism of chavez, et al become "but Bush is worse!"? Or "yea - the FARC is bad, but look at the paras!!". Happens constantly. is always the way of an apologist- divert attention from the real issue by waving the red flag at a different bull. quickly followed by "now I don't condone this, BUT...."

gets tiresome, really.

Before you throw me out, make sure I pay my bar tab

0 funny, 0 helpful.

slguy says on Feb 9, 2008, 11:59:

did you read my post? you just did EXACTLY what I was commenting on.....trying to help me out,were you? ;)

It isn't that any sane person would NOT be opposed to both groups. my complaint is - why must one subject always be dragged into another? why is it soooooo friggin' difficult for certain posters here to clearly denounce FARC, w/out taking the opportunity to spend twice as much time denouncing AUC/ the paras/Uribe? To spend all one's energies denouncing Uribe, with only an obligatory "but i don't support FARC", almost as an afterthought, leaves many of us assuming, and I think rightfully so, that the poster does not see FARC as the root of the civil unrest. Absent FARC's long history of brutality, AUC would never have reason to exist, now would they? Why is it so damned difficult for the Uribe-haters to see this?

Before you throw me out, make sure I pay my bar tab

0 funny, 0 helpful.

slguy says on Feb 9, 2008, 12:57:

yep. you're corect. likely you'd never "educate" me sufficiently to agree with you. but we don't really need to agree, do we?

Before you throw me out, make sure I pay my bar tab

0 funny, 0 helpful.

slguy says on Feb 9, 2008, 13:08:

I agree completely. no thinking person with half a brain could possibly disagree. it's equality of exposure that disheartens me.

Before you throw me out, make sure I pay my bar tab

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on Feb 9, 2008, 17:51:

The issue of whether this is actually a march (which requires walking through the streets) or a concentration (merely showing up at the Plaza de Bolivar) aside...I will try to attend if circumstances permit, as I sincerely hope they will.

In any case, this march is just as valid as the other one, though one might question certain minor details. Still, one doesn't need to agree with everything, just as in the case of the other march, in order to agree with the essentials.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

webmanco says on Feb 17, 2008, 03:50:

http://www.eltiempo.com/tiempoimpreso/edicionimpresa/domingoadomingo/2...



Febrero 16 de 2008

Saldo en rojo

Foto: Archivo / EL TIEMPOMás de un millón de campesinos han dejado de ser propietarios para convertirse en indigentes, jornaleros u obreros. Cálculos conservadores estiman en 4 millones las hectáreas que perdieron por culpa de la violencia y en 54.563 las que han recibido del Estado en los últimos 5 años.

Dicen que Ismael Vargas anda pidiendo limosna en Cartagena y quienes lo conocieron en los 90 no lo pueden creer: era uno de los habitantes más ricos de La Gabarra, corregimiento de Tibú, Norte de Santander.

Prestaba plata a interés, apadrinaba niños y, El Porvenir, su supermercado, abastecía a gran parte de la región.

Pero los hombres del bloque Catatumbo de las autodefensas, al mando de Salvatore Mancuso, lo obligaron a dejar sus propiedades y a huir de la zona con lo que llevaba encima.

No se sabe si Vargas aparece en el Registro Único oficial de Población Desplazada, que ya contabiliza 2'359.838 colombianos desterrados por la violencia paramilitar, guerrillera y narca. Tampoco se sabe qué pasó con sus propiedades y con las del resto de campesinos que salieron huyendo por la presión 'para'.

No hay extremo cierto o verdadero, porque los extremos opacan, enruedan, (lavan cerebros) verdades. Yotas

0 funny, 0 helpful.