Chávez asks to remove FARC and ELN from terror lists

catherine b says on Jan 11, 2008, 09:54:

The penny drops. What was known all along. The hostage release negotiations are merely a tool to improve the international image of Chavez and farc as well as push for farc "legitimacy".

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on Jan 11, 2008, 09:59:

World (as of 1/12/2008 1:44 AM)

Chavez says Colombia's rebels not terrorists

Agence France Presse

CARACAS - Hours after welcoming hostages freed by the Colombian rebel group FARC, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez urged European and Latin American governments Friday to stop branding Colombia's guerrillas terrorists as does the United States.

"I am asking the governments (across Latin America) to take the FARC (Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia) and ELN (National Liberation Army) off their lists of global terrorist groups," Chavez told the National Assembly, saying he asked European nations to do the same.

"Because those lists exist for one reason alone -- US pressure," Chavez said in his address on the year 2007.

The leftist Colombian rebel groups "are not any terrorist body, they are real armies that occupy territory in Colombia; they must be recognized, they are insurgent forces that have a political project, a Bolivarian project, which here is respected," Chavez said in a message likely to infuriate the elected Colombian government the rebels are bent on bringing down.

Chavez says he is inspired by independence hero Simon Bolivar, whose name he also invokes to describe what he calls Venezuela's socialist "Bolivarian" revolution.

http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/storypage.aspx?StoryId=105243

0 funny, 0 helpful.

tasco66 says on Jan 11, 2008, 09:59:

How about putting Venezuela on the list of states that support terrorist organizations?

Bravo, Presidente Uribe for the perfect operation!

0 funny, 0 helpful.

ColombianoGringo says on Jan 11, 2008, 10:04:

I'm sure that the chavez fans on this site will conveniently ignore this blatant example of his support for the farc criminals.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

JoseRamone says on Jan 11, 2008, 10:32:

Lifted from topix.net by "Anonymous":

"I just got back from 3 years straight in Ven. I traveled all over the country Caracas, Valencia, Barquicimato, Maracaibo, Barinas, and every little place in between. I lived and worked with the rich, the middle class, the poor and with nearly every group, black ven., Indians, Spanish, Itialian, American, etc. I used the medical system, roads, airports. Yes I am still a gringo, but as far as that go's I feel I know Ven. well, and saw things from the inside out during an interesting time mainly standing right next to the poor class. I will try to be objectionable in what I say...and concise.

Chavez is smart.

He has scared the majority of the upper class and educated out of his country.
He wildly throws money at the poor in super inefficient ways, but the poor will take whatever they can get, and continue voting for him. While living in the country I watch convoys of armed military trucks go back into villages with food, Id printing machines, and voting machines, never to return again with food or other support, just in for the votes, not so different from the rest of the world.
All media in Venezuela fear imprisonment and fines.

For 3 years now you can walk up to a poor class person in the street ask them about the US and they will say they love the US but are absolutely sure that the US is planning a violent invasion of Venezuela. This is due to the Chavez's "Cadena" a regular taking over nearly every TV channel for hours while he sits behind his desk ranting about how Tom Brokaw was the devil, or how he is going to hit a baseball all the way to DC and put it through the white house window, all the while standing there in a baseball uniform with a bat, and scaring the piss out of everyone saying to prepare for the invasion, oh and, "I am the only president who reads his bible" always sitting on his desk and pounding it like a fire and brimstone preacher. 6 years ago when Caracas flooded and 40,000 people were killed, the US loaded up 2 aircraft carriers with the army corps of engineers and medical support, half way through the Caribbean Chavez stated they would not be allowed to land on Venezuelan sovereign soil, they turned back, thousands could have been saved.

As the first refferendum approached hundreds of little towns got new plazas in the presidents name, so that's good. Oh and anyone who wanted to open a subsidized community food store in their house could do so, thousands did, and got cheap gov subsidised chicken and rice from Brazil and were able to sell it cheap and make money, 11 rice production farm/plants went out of buisness in the first 6 months, and 5 huge chicken farms went under just in Yaracuy, He doesn't think ahead or doesn't care, you choose which, but it sure got him some votes. He nationalized all the foriegn oil operations in Ven. thats fine with me, it's their oil but he has been so careless with the oil money that is to stay with the oil companies for maintenence and exploration that most of is sea ports for oil operation are now...unoperational and many countries wont dock.

Hugo says he want's to build tourism, yet yanks any visa over tourist visa, he kicked every mission organization that works on the Orinoco and Amazon river out of the amazon region, about 100 people who were missionary Dr.'s Dentists Health care specialists that have been working there for nearly 70 years. So now dengue, malaria, snake bite, etc. can all take back over. And trust me he didn't put any Cuban Dr's out there to replace them. He also kicked out 2 organizations that provide emergency flights in and out of the amazon region to suppor those who have dedicated their lives to helping the forgotten people of he Amazon. That was all in conjunction with stopping any foreigners from getting a visa over 90 days, including myself, that's OK it's his country, but he just forced out hundreds more medical, social, educational, professionals, millions of dollars in support of the poor, and also revenue. He is isolating himself, but you ask the average fellow on the street and they don't want that. I could go on and on with the bad things that Chavez has propagated through fear and intimidation and poor planning. I really think that he wants whats best for his people and he will do anything he can to stay in power to keep trying and failing, even if that means taking away their rights, their freedom of speech, their security, and ability to come and go freely. I really believe Venezuela needs help but Hugo is not the answer.

Venezuela has more resources, oil, gas, tourism, steel, diamonds, cattle, sugar, etc. than any other Latin country but is wallowing in a pool of corruption and power struggles. They need to get rid of their military, exploit their tourism, manage their oil, and take a deep breath. Look at Costa Rica, safe, clean, good economy, little corruption, stable...why?? they basically got rid of the military, which takes away fear and a lot of corruption, got a stable president, and managed their resources. Venezuela can do that, but not with Hugo. I believe his people are realizing that. But the decision is up to them."

0 funny, 0 helpful.

robi666 says on Jan 11, 2008, 11:01:

What about what the venezuelan minister Ramón Rodríguez Chacín told to the guerrilla yesterday? A real pearl...

Lo planteado por Chávez parece tener como antecedente lo que le dijo ayer el ministro del Interior de Venezuela, Ramón Rodríguez Chacín, al jefe guerrillero que le entregó a Clara Rojas y a Consuelo González.

Tras un efusivo saludo, Rodríguez le dijo al subversivo: "estamos muy pendientes de su lucha... mantengan ese esfuerzo y cuenten con nosotros".

http://www.eltiempo.com/politica/2008-01-11/ARTICULO-WEB-NOTA_INTERIOR...

"I am a citizen of the most beautiful nation on earth. A nation whose laws are harsh yet simple, a nation that never cheats, which is immense and without borders, where life is lived in the present."

0 funny, 0 helpful.

manINred says on Jan 11, 2008, 11:17:

You know, I initially had no problem with Chavez in principle, but the more I read of his ridiculous antics, the worse my opinion becomes of him.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

MitchAlvarez says on Jan 11, 2008, 11:19:

Did you guys see his congress or wherever he was giving his speech aplauding this asshole's statements. Man its tough not to rejoice on the liberation of Clara and Consuelo but at what expense. This assholes expansionist bullshit and now more and more people questioning Uribe.

This guy is amazing. Why doesnt the FARC move to Venezuela if they have so many supporters?

"Ingrid callate la jeta!! Stay in France"

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Mr. Hollywood says on Jan 11, 2008, 11:23:

Chavez: "The FARC are not any terrorist body, they are real armies that occupy territory in Colombia. "

Hmmm. Why did he forget to mention that they also occupy territory in Venezuela?

0 funny, 0 helpful.

MitchAlvarez says on Jan 11, 2008, 11:25:

Go to hell chavez and your bullshit!!!!!!!!!!!!!! perro hp

"Ingrid callate la jeta!! Stay in France"

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Tinto (Moderator) says on Jan 11, 2008, 11:25:

It's no secret that Venezuela is a common transit area for processed drugs; if the climate and topography are conducive, I wonder if we'll someday learn of large scale coca growing operations there???

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Albatross says on Jan 11, 2008, 11:53:

There's a fine line between "Revolutionary" and "Terrorist".
George Washington, Abe Lincoln, Malcolm X, Che Guevara, Fidel Castro, Mao Tse Tung and Osama Bin Laden (just to name a few) can each be considered terrorists or revolutionaries, depending on you're point of view.

And Chavez may have a point when he suggests that these "global terrorist group lists" are in place partly to supress dissent, thereby ensuring the status quo.

Disclaimer: This isn't an endorsement for FARC, ELN, IRA, ETA, ect.

“Democracy - a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance." - H.L. Mencken

0 funny, 0 helpful.

billyb says on Jan 11, 2008, 11:59:

I kind of think that when you toss a cylinder bomb into a church full of women and children and kill 119 of them, as the FARC has done, you have crossed that nebulous fine line. Or do you still have doubts about that being terrorism?

0 funny, 0 helpful.

dwr says on Jan 11, 2008, 12:01:

So you suggest, Albatross, that by killing and kidnapping the civilian population, you are a true revolutionary? What about bombs in malls? How about the road blocks and dragging the father away into the jungle in front of his children's eyes? How about kidnapping children? Oh wait, children are fair game in the revolutionary process! right? Not to mention a tidy little side business in the revolutionary process.

I could care less about terror lists. This is not about revolution. This is about power. And the common man is the one paying the price in this "revolution".

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on Jan 11, 2008, 12:02:

Albatross: I'm sorry...but while there's room for interpretation, it's not really so fine a line when you consider their specific actions at specific points in time and what was internationally considered to be terrorist then, not just making a generic "all these people could be terrorists or not depending on your point of view" statement.

Not to mention that it's not simply a choice between "terrorist OR revolutionary", since other terms can also be applied, and revolutionaries can also be terrorists.

Trying to confuse everything like that, as if all of their methods, goals and circumstances were exactly the same...isn't my cup of tea, so to speak.

And Chávez may have a point about terror lists in general, as a concept, but this particular instance goes far beyond that one point.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Albatross says on Jan 11, 2008, 12:17:

As I admitted in another thread, I don't know squat about Colombian politics or the war. And I can only assume you all are right about FARC.

However, my point remains exactly as I said: one man's terrorist is another's revolutionary.

Bin Laden has killed thousands of innocent people, but still, there are MILLIONS of people who still consider him a revolutionary... a hero... a visionary... Godlike. And if history were to end up written by Muslim extremists, he would likely be remembered as such.

“Democracy - a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance." - H.L. Mencken

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Mr. Hollywood says on Jan 11, 2008, 12:29:

You're right, but we're not talking about writing history, we're talking about international diplomacy and law.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

ferrran says on Jan 11, 2008, 12:34:

Lets not kid ourself s, with all this circus and theatrics, Chavez is a pawn, the guerrilla is a pawn, Alvaro Uribe is a pawn, G.W. Bush is a pawn. Who are they a pawn of? A very powerful elite group on this planet that pull the strings from behind the scenes. Hugo Chavez Frias is a stupid ignorant Indio who is drunken with power, he truly thinks of himself as becoming the next Simon Bolivar, S.M. was a white European Free Mason who worked for the higher agenda of the order, nothing more, its all very simple; create the problem, see the reaction, and then applied the solution, ie. Create the guerrilla (have then create havoc, terror) See the reaction of the people (terrorized, afraid, give up) the solution, the state brings in a leader to fight this evil, (Alvaro Uribe) and to confused matters even more, bring in the jester the clown ( Chavez).
This little passion play is being played in Latin America now, but the same show with different actors, is being played all over the planet, the real antidote? don't believe in the whole BIG LIE!! (government leaders, the church and its religions, the media). Lets all UNITE as brothers and sisters and as humans that we are, support the next person, be humble, educate ourselves, don't steal, don't lie to the people around you. there are some BIG cosmic changes coming ahead and very soon! there are happening right now, OPEN YOUR EYES, WAKE UP!! listen to the wind, and once and for all we can live in peace without all these murders and clowns.
Colombia you have a destiny, and is the hands of the true unselfish Colombians!!
Peace to you all..............

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Desi1 (Moderator) says on Jan 11, 2008, 12:44:

So, who's the puppet master? Satan?

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on Jan 11, 2008, 12:49:

Albatross:

"However, my point remains exactly as I said: one man's terrorist is another's revolutionary."

And I still think a terrorist can also be a revolutionary and vice versa.

There is no essential contradiction, since terrorism can be a (very specific) method of revolutionary struggle and revolution can be the (very specific) final objective of a terrorist.

What can change are the interpretations of said terrorist-revolutionary or revolutionary-terrorist in the context of national or world history.

But it's not like actions, methods and goals don't matter, or as if all forms of dissent and rebellion are either revolutionary OR terrorist...

0 funny, 0 helpful.

tasco66 says on Jan 11, 2008, 13:04:

Good point of view from a El Tiempo reader:

"No soy uribista, pero señor presidente, acepte la condicion de chavez, pero colombia pida como condicion: devolver a todos los secuestrados, no volver a cometer ni un secuestro mas, ni una toma guerrillera, ni un solo gramo de cocaina o heroina traficada por este grupo. aceptemos lo que chavez propone, pero si aceptan estas condiciones. además me parece desequilibrado que un presidente de cualquier nacion del mundo interfiera en los asuntos internos de nuestro país. además en su primera elección vote por usted señor presidente, solo porque dijo que iba a acabar la inseguridad en el país y la corrupción administrativa. todavia estoy esperando las dos cosas."

Bravo, Presidente Uribe for the perfect operation!

0 funny, 0 helpful.

billyb says on Jan 11, 2008, 13:08:

"And if history were to end up written by Muslim extremists, he would likely be remembered as such."

Ok, I get it, if history is written by terrorists then terroroists won't be considered terrorists. Great logic.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

billyb says on Jan 11, 2008, 13:10:

"Lets not kid ourself s, with all this circus and theatrics, Chavez is a pawn, the guerrilla is a pawn, Alvaro Uribe is a pawn, G.W. Bush is a pawn. Who are they a pawn of? A very powerful elite group on this planet that pull the strings from behind the scenes. "


Ferran, I would like to introduce Gringoloid :))

0 funny, 0 helpful.

MitchAlvarez says on Jan 11, 2008, 13:21:

revolutionary my ass. asesinos malparidos.

albatross has to bring up bin laden of all people to try to explain his pro farc attitude. sad man... youve had some great comments/posts.

"Ingrid callate la jeta!! Stay in France"

0 funny, 0 helpful.

ColombianoGringo says on Jan 11, 2008, 13:28:

The farc has a very well documented history of using cylinder bombs in civilian areas. I suppose they accidentally launched over 40 bombs into my wife's hometown in one attack. You are so clueless it almost makes me feel sorry for you.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Desi1 (Moderator) says on Jan 11, 2008, 13:29:

Mitch, I find Albatross attitude neutral, even courageous to be able to sustain an intellectual neutrality in a sea of passions.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on Jan 11, 2008, 13:33:

Desi1: Courageous it may be, but it's still quite vulnerable to logical questions (does a violent opposition group have to be either a revolutionary OR a terrorist, with no other options? Are all the other groups and individuals mentioned using the same tactics or the same goals?), regardless of any other passions one may have.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

tasco66 says on Jan 11, 2008, 13:36:

I suppose for Cassini the bombing of El Nogal and the Zona Rosa were also Farc “accidents�...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_El_Nogal_Club_bombing

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2003-09-28-columbia-bomb_x.htm

Bravo, Presidente Uribe for the perfect operation!

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on Jan 11, 2008, 13:40:

cassini77: I'd probably like to see you answer some of the questions I've already presented as well.

Maybe terrorism was indeed one of the methods employed by the French resistance, if (to use just one example) they set up bombs in non-military areas and affected French civilians, regardless of whatever the Nazis did.

I'm not informed enough to discuss the French resistance in massive detail, so it's mostly a rhetorical question in this context.

That doesn't mean that the French resistance was "evil", but, under this scenario, they should be willing to accept both the good (they were fighting against a foreign occupatio force and were supported by a government in exile, the consequence of a conventional conflict France lost) and the bad (they may have caused French civilian casualties) of their actions, with their respective consequences, if applicable.

Since the war led to a restoration of an independent French government (not by the resistance per se, but by the invading Allies through a conventional war) and the end of the foreign occupation, however, it can be understood if a lot of things were swept under the rug in the process, but that doesn't change the underlying facts when and if they are unearthed.

If someone today writes articles about a bomb attack where, say, French civilians lost their lives due to an intentional effort of the French resistance, that act could definitely be considered terrorism without too much difficulty. However, in order to speak about the French resistance as a whole, other elements would have to be considered as well, including how frequent those actions were and so forth.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Desi1 (Moderator) says on Jan 11, 2008, 13:48:

Juance, I condemn tactical terrorism for whatever reasons, but the history has always been written by the winners. We're using new labels to classify things that are older than the mountains. Does a violent opposition group have to be revolutionary? Depends on semantics, what you mean *revolutionary*, but the very idea of opposing something violently seems to indicate that you want to bring around a change, a "revolution" of sorts. Can you be violent without being a terrorist? Yes, I suppose you can, but then you'd have to be granted the belligerent status and you'd have to give up throwing gas cylinders into churches. If that could be achieved by granting the belligerent status, I'm all for it. If that would also mean that you release the hostages and quit bullying campesinos and quit trafficking drugs, I'd say yes, subversives, insurgents, rebels, not terrorists. But as long as your president does not want to aknowlidge there's an armed conflict in the country the issue is pureley academical.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

tasco66 says on Jan 11, 2008, 13:48:

If Cassini’s only argument is what the Nazis said…I don’t think he will convince anyone here…

Bravo, Presidente Uribe for the perfect operation!

0 funny, 0 helpful.

tasco66 says on Jan 11, 2008, 14:01:

Hey Cassini how would you qualify the Islamic group that in 1995 bombed several times the Paris Metro?

Your President sure called them terrorists!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1995_Islamist_terror_bombings_in_France

Bravo, Presidente Uribe for the perfect operation!

0 funny, 0 helpful.

billyb says on Jan 11, 2008, 14:01:

"There was an inquiry about this murder that concluded that it was not voluntary"

Somebody held a gun to their heads and forced them to fire the Cylinder at the church?

0 funny, 0 helpful.

billyb says on Jan 11, 2008, 14:03:

"In France, during the Second World War, Nazis named Resistants as "terrorists" and "army of the crime".

All six that resisted, they were happy with the other 99%

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on Jan 11, 2008, 14:04:

Desi1: The issue may be purely academic and semantic on the surface, but the consequences are quite practical, especially when we talk about current events.

Yes, the winners do write history. But, again, we can also discuss history, including the specific methods and specific actions of specific groups, regardless of whether they "won" or "lost".

The French resistance won (due to Allied action first and foremost) and I still think that, if what I mentioned above happens to be true (again, I'm no expert on the subject), at least a couple of their methods could be questioned even today, and the word "terrorist" could apply.

I can definitely accept that there is an armed conflict in Colombia, so I'm with you there.

I can also accept that FARC, among other things, is a politico-military, insurgent or subversive organization, so I'm with you there. But they are also terrorist, at this point at least and until they change their behavior.

I also have no problems with giving them explicit belligerent status if and when the necessary changes are made.

In my opinion, Uribe is completely mishandling the situation, whether out of an inability to understand or an honest conviction, which is what allows Chávez to enter into the equation uncontrolled and pretend that he can dictate us terms.

Basically, violent opposition groups that use less (or no) terrorism are different from those which use more (or only) terrorist methods. That should affect how we view them and how we act.

Even when they win, at this point in human development there will almost always be historical records (newspapers, books, photos, videos, etc.) which will limit how much of history they can write or rewrite, and there will be more than one narrative about them, external or internal.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

tasco66 says on Jan 11, 2008, 14:08:

"All six that resisted, they were happy with the other 99%" that willingly collaborated with them...

billyb you forgot to mention the "six resistant" took their orders from Moscow and it was only when Germany invaded the Soviet Union that they began their “terrorist� activities…

Bravo, Presidente Uribe for the perfect operation!

0 funny, 0 helpful.

dwr says on Jan 11, 2008, 14:08:

Cassini. Desi. How can you sit in your comfortable Eurotrash offices and comment on revolution in South America. You have no idea how many people have been affected by the atrocities committed by these groups. So many people killed and tortored. So many families with no idea where there loved ones are today. So many people afraid for their lives. I think you stink. I think you offend the families of all the victims and their families.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on Jan 11, 2008, 14:15:

As for the meaning of the term "revolutionary", there are indeed different interpretations about the "changes" involved, which is precisely what makes it completely compatible with the term "terrorist", which is my point.

From my point of view, FARC are revolutionary, because they claim they want to change Colombian society by taking power and implementing vast reforms, but that doesn't prevent them from being terrorist due to some of their methods.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

dwr says on Jan 11, 2008, 14:16:

Revolutionary???? Half the army are kidnapped children and peasants!

0 funny, 0 helpful.

dwr says on Jan 11, 2008, 14:17:

They run a drug empire dude!

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on Jan 11, 2008, 14:19:

dwr: I also think they are crap, on a purely personal level, so don't misunderstand me (I also think Uribe is crap too, personally speaking, but that's another subject)

But it's hard to deny that their goal is still technically revolutionary, as much as they may wrap it with so many layers of filth that it's mostly a failed excuse for a failed struggle rather than anything else, in practice.

I'm sure that many of the guerrillas and leaders still believe, as unreal as such a belief may sound in context, that they'll eventually change Colombian society and create a "New (as in "better") Colombia". Probably some of them are just in for the money, but I'm not sure we can say that about the rest.

Does this mean I want to run and shake their hands, picking up a rifle or a bomb in order to help them? Not at all.

If they were a different guerrilla, and if the government was also different...the answer would also change.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

manINred says on Jan 11, 2008, 14:27:

"As I admitted in another thread, I don't know squat about Colombian politics or the war. And I can only assume you all are right about FARC.

However, my point remains exactly as I said: one man's terrorist is another's revolutionary.

Bin Laden has killed thousands of innocent people, but still, there are MILLIONS of people who still consider him a revolutionary... a hero... a visionary... Godlike. And if history were to end up written by Muslim extremists, he would likely be remembered as such."

Absolutely spot-on.

The sad thing is that if applied to Colombia, and the FARC win, they will be heroes. Full stop. Just like Bin Laden to many is a hero, regardless of the repugnancy of such an idea to morally-grounded people.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Albatross says on Jan 11, 2008, 14:34:

Juance,

Sorry, I missed your point that one can be both a terrorist AND a revolutionary... you're right, in fact, that's often the case. Non-violent revolutions are historically rare, usually blood is spilled. The French resistance is one example, the French revolution is another, even more bloody example (It's not known as "The Reign of Terror" for nothing). Successful, non-violent revolutionaries such as Ghandi and Martin Luther King are harder to find. Even Dr. King had many contemporaries, Malcolm X and the Black Panthers among them who thought he was too much a pacifist. As Malcolm X famously declared, blacks had to rise "by any means necessary".

Of course, despite what MitchAlverez says, none of this is an attempt to explain, justify or excuse FARC.
For all I know, they are nothing but criminals.

“Democracy - a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance." - H.L. Mencken

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on Jan 11, 2008, 14:38:

manINred:

Perhaps if they won a century ago such a point would be valid, I suppose, but such a scenario is becoming increasingly unrealistic and incomplete in more modern times, ignoring the changes in technology, globalization and record-keeping,

Even if FARC win, that doesn't mean that all the crimes they may have committed will be erased from the historical record of humanity, when they are even admitted by many of those who are in opposition to the current Colombian government, as well as internal and external observers such as the United Nations, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the Organization of American States, and probably more than a few countries who, even if they don't use the term "terrorist" at all, haven't considered them "heroes" right now. Nor does that mean that the history of Colombia will never change from that point on, or that only FARC will rule from then until the end of time. Too many variables are still at work.

Heck, Bin Laden may be considered a hero by part of humanity (not even all of the Muslim world, however, despite what propaganda may imply), but many other people don't see him as such, and in his particular case it's not possible to "win" when you consider that his goals are too ambitious, which makes it even more unlikely that he'll be in a position to rewrite the records of most of the world.

For that matter, Stalin won WWII and even so history didn't end with him as a triumphant, heroic figure with no flaws. Later and earlier events portray him in a different light. Even within Russia, from what little I have read about it, he's not exactly immune to criticism, though others do admire him there as well.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Desi1 (Moderator) says on Jan 11, 2008, 14:39:

Dwr; at this time of the day we are not writing from our "Eurotrash" offices (I don't work at an office and I resent the label "Eurotrash" so would you please abstain to use it further postings?). How can we comment on South American revolutions? Well, I can only speak for myself. What makes you think I'm not as informed on "South American revolutions" as you are? I don't have to live in Bogotá in alto Chicó to understand revolution.

My Colombian friends and family know how I feel about the social and political issues in Colombia and they are not offended. They know that I'm not a guerrilla supporter and I place human life above everything else.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on Jan 11, 2008, 14:50:

Albatross: I've never accused you, or Desi or even cassini for that matter, of being FARC supporters. Other people have, but I haven't and won't. I understand we have different opinions, but that doesn't automatically lead me down that road.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

manINred says on Jan 11, 2008, 14:55:

agreed juancegomez. I was talking about within Colombia, although granted the memory never forgets. But will the FARC commit humanitarian crimes to obtain power and then stop once they have complete control of Colombia? I would think so. It would take a couple of generations, but as new FARClets emerge and the old ones died out, they would gain a sense of legitimacy, since it was their ancestors who would take the short-term fall, especially if their agenda proves successful, past sins could be forgiven as new ties are forged.

I was speaking purely from a hypothetical standpoint, as such a situation is clearly unlikely to occur.

I for one will never consider either the FARC nor Bin Laden heroic, quite the contrary, the world would be a better place without them.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Albatross says on Jan 11, 2008, 14:58:

"Eurotrash"... how did that rear it's ugly head ?

Dwr, are you suggesting that Europeans no nothing of revolution and bloodshed ?
If so, you should take a quick peek at history, for a start:

The Crucifiction
The Crusades
The Spanish Inquisition
The French Revolution
World War I
The Bolshevik Revolution
The Spanish Civil War
World War II - The Holocaust
Budapest - 1956
Prague - 1968
Gdansk - 1989
The Yugoslav Wars

And, no, I don't think "that by killing and kidnapping the civilian population, you are a true revolutionary"

“Democracy - a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance." - H.L. Mencken

0 funny, 0 helpful.

podborski says on Jan 11, 2008, 15:06:

Desi you seem to think being neutral is a good thing, I think it's appalling, like Switzerland in WWII.

Just because some uneducated lunatics think bin laden is a revolutionary or a god does not make him one. His acts speak for themselves: he is a terrorist, as is FARC. There's nothing even remotely grey about it.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

billyb says on Jan 11, 2008, 15:10:

Albatross, that history above speaks to a lot of experience oppressing people.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

tasco66 says on Jan 11, 2008, 15:13:

podborski I prefer a country being neutral like Switzerland, that has been used in many peace agreements or as is the case in the release of hostages in Colombia through the Red Cross, than a country supporting terrorists such as Venezuela…

Bravo, Presidente Uribe for the perfect operation!

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Desi1 (Moderator) says on Jan 11, 2008, 15:17:

and a lot of experience in fighting the oppression...it's the old story of how you prefer to look at things..if your glass is half empty or half full

0 funny, 0 helpful.

billyb says on Jan 11, 2008, 15:21:

Of course it will be, what else would you deserve?

0 funny, 0 helpful.

catherine b says on Jan 11, 2008, 15:25:

For once I agree with ex president Andres Pastrana.
http://www.eltiempo.com/audio_emergencia.html?file=multimedia/audio/po... es un chantaje", dice ex presidente Andrés Pastrana sobre petición de Chávez

0 funny, 0 helpful.

billyb says on Jan 11, 2008, 15:27:

"and a lot of experience in fighting the oppression...it's the old story of how you prefer to look at things..if your glass is half empty or half full"

Or what came first, the chicken or the egg? You can't fight oppression unless you are victimized by it first.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

dwr says on Jan 11, 2008, 15:29:

I'm sorry but I take offense at anyone trying to justify thugs walking around the jungle with people in chains. Pardon the generalization. I will only direct my disgust at you. These are people with families and thus those who live here generally know someone in such conditions. You know nothing of Colombia or Latin American revolution. History, maybe but of course you didn't live it? This is no revolution. This is a group of very wealth narco criminals with a hired army who utilized fear and violence to maintain a very luctrative business. How can you try and take a neutral stand on someone who would have you marching to their tune should you fall into their hands?

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Albatross says on Jan 11, 2008, 15:46:

Although I would tend to agree, I'm not sure of the truth in this matter. So I won't comment, other than to say that maybe you should direct your disgust where it might do some good. I really don't think anyone at PBH actually condones random violence, especially at the level you describe.

“Democracy - a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance." - H.L. Mencken

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Desi1 (Moderator) says on Jan 11, 2008, 15:53:

dwr, I don't try to justify anything. What makes you think you know anything about what I might know or not know?

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Mr. Hollywood says on Jan 11, 2008, 16:38:

I don't mean to interrupt all this name-calling and process discussion with facts, but I do think it's probably worth noting that the FARC's terrorist designation was hardly the arbitrary decision of Uribe or any other Colombian leader. It was the considered and mutual decision of a lot of different nations and carries that authority.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

vladimiro says on Jan 11, 2008, 17:42:

So how was it that the FARC were'nt "terrorists" under Pastrana when red carpets were rolled out for FARC leaders when they traveled to varous European cities? Eventually a power sharing aggreement will have to be made with the FARC. I think the governemtn is just fighting for a better negotiating position..

0 funny, 0 helpful.

slguy says on Jan 11, 2008, 17:45:

Simple, vlad.

No one ever accused the world community of accepting truth without wideranging debate and hand wringing. much of the world ignored Hitler's concentration camps until after the war. made them no less real, even when the world was late to recognize the truth.

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

0 funny, 0 helpful.

MitchAlvarez says on Jan 11, 2008, 17:49:

You know what... albatross, desi, cassini, or whoever else is writing about this.

You guys write very nice. Love the words you all use. Love how you make this such so complicated and all.

To me its all bottom line. My people get killed. My people get kidnapped. By PIGS.

If you were born or raised in Colombia and you support these pigs then your just like them.

If your not from Colombia and simply watching TV to find out about this stuff then I cant expect much from you.


So pardon if I accuse Albatross or anybody........I dont you enough to say what you think or dont. But I can not sympathize with PIGS who have have fathers, mothers, sisters, brothers, cousins, and others in the jungle or in coffins.

"Ingrid callate la jeta!! Stay in France"

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on Jan 11, 2008, 18:36:

vladimiro:

"So how was it that the FARC were'nt "terrorists" under Pastrana when red carpets were rolled out for FARC leaders when they traveled to varous European cities? "

They weren't on the European terror list until the peace process ended, when Pastrana stopped treating them so kindly, as was logical during a peace process.

The Europeans Union voted for their inclusion on the list that year, during 2002. The ELN was only added a couple of years later, circa 2004, I think.

It would make perfect sense to remove all of them from such a list, or to remove the entire label as a whole, during or after a real peace negotiation...but just like that, with no peace negotiation, change in behavior or actual peace in sight...? Not really.

"Eventually a power sharing aggreement will have to be made with the FARC. I think the governemtn is just fighting for a better negotiating position.."

I think "power sharing" is very far off the mark at this point, unless you mean local/regional power in the areas where their influence is strong, which aren't very populated areas to begin with, as well as legislative participation.

However, FARC has no basis to "share" national executive power over the entire population as a result of anything BUT elections, at this point in time.

Unless we don't care about what the people in actual populated areas think, or have a very different idea about what "power sharing" is.

They'd have to control cities and population centers before one could even begin to think of, say, giving them a substantial amount of national executive power just like that...

0 funny, 0 helpful.

billyb says on Jan 11, 2008, 18:53:

"Eventually a power sharing aggreement will have to be made with the FARC"

Keep dreaming. It will never happen. There might be some kind of accomodation, but never power sharing. And the problem is that the FARC is trying to mask how weak its bargaining position really is, kind of like putting lipstick on a pig. That is why they need their patron, Hugo, to put on the full court press on their behalf.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

huskie says on Jan 11, 2008, 19:11:

Death to Chavez and the FARC! No Mercy

CRIMINALS, TERRORIST, KILLERS, CREEPS, THE WORST EVIL.

CHAVEZ WILL BURN ALL ON HIS OWN, CAN'T WAIT TO SEE THAT HAPPEN!!

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds-"

0 funny, 0 helpful.

MitchAlvarez says on Jan 11, 2008, 19:21:

huskie that was beautiful.

"Ingrid callate la jeta!! Stay in France"

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Enrique187 says on Jan 11, 2008, 19:31:

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Enrique187 says on Jan 11, 2008, 19:33:

I wonder when Chavez will attempt to release all the hostages he is holding now in his own country??????? OHHHHHH BUT SOCIALISM ALWAYS WORKS, JUST LOOK AT RUSSIA!

0 funny, 0 helpful.

vladimiro says on Jan 11, 2008, 19:59:

I think the FARC can be convinced to accept regional power if governments like Venezuela are ready to invest in FARC controlled parts of Colombia as part of the process. Under Pastrana, for instance, the government of Iran was to build in a FARC controlled area an airport, and South America's largest meat processing plant to export halal beef to the MidEast. Pastrana gave in to US pressure and abandoned the project, but eventually a Colombian government that does not put US interests above Colombia's may come to power.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

robi666 says on Jan 11, 2008, 20:04:

"I think the FARC can be convinced to accept regional power".
That's hilarious! Who wants to convince them?
Vladimiro, who's going to decide to live in that region? Should Colombia do a referendum? Guess the results.
What about people living there? Mas desplazados?

"I am a citizen of the most beautiful nation on earth. A nation whose laws are harsh yet simple, a nation that never cheats, which is immense and without borders, where life is lived in the present."

0 funny, 0 helpful.

robi666 says on Jan 11, 2008, 20:05:

Right now they are giving a good documentary on Caracol. 25 years of Colombian resistance.

"I am a citizen of the most beautiful nation on earth. A nation whose laws are harsh yet simple, a nation that never cheats, which is immense and without borders, where life is lived in the present."

0 funny, 0 helpful.

webmanco says on Jan 11, 2008, 20:08:

(I really hate it when women get their panties all bunched up their butt, they can get so cranky!) Poor butt happy

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on Jan 11, 2008, 20:22:

vladimiro: It should be mentioned that the Iran project was in the DMZ, not just any random area. FARC decided to openly take over the DMZ in violation of the agreements and understandings which created it in the first place, but the government mostly tolerated it. The DMZ was demilitarized in order to talk about peace, not in order to create an area under the control of FARC, though that's what they apparently understood and took advantage of. Such a project would have been probably doomed anyways, since the peace talks didn't reach a positive end.

As for power sharing, the problem is that FARC doesn't want regional power, they want national power. That's what their organization is about, after all.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

athensugadawg says on Jan 11, 2008, 20:59:

Just saw snippets of Tio Hugo's speech on the news.....folks, this is a train wreck waiting to happen. He might as well go ahead and issue a declaration of war. Increible....

0 funny, 0 helpful.

MitchAlvarez says on Jan 11, 2008, 21:17:

Chavez y su gente son un perros falsos.

Acabo de volver a las noticias y el ministro marica ese le dijo a los guerilleros en el momento de la entrega que sigan su lucha y como que los felicita. "En nombre del Presidente Chávez estamos muy pendientes de su lucha... mantengan ese espíritu, mantengan esa fuerza y cuenten con nosotros"

Perros malparidos... celebrando la matanza de mis compatriotas.

uy no es que si es un descaro total el de chavez y sus ratas.

Uribe no deje entrar mas de esas chuchas a nuestro pais.
Disque bolivarianos, lo que son es perro hp.

I dont know how many of you sympathize with this bullshit. Uribe authorizes these Chavez pigs to come into Colombia when we all knew this is just done for show. They dont care about lives. They care about TeleSur being there in the jungle to show these images of Farc as so called good people. This is bullshit. He has the audacity to say keep up the good work to those criminals.

this is bullshit. and this is my last comment in this topic.

this is not a regular post about girls, mangos night club, or what city is better. where we can all joke, write shit, and just go back and forth. this is about real lives, innocent people, and criminals looking for publicity from a pig.

i hope we kill every single one of them soon.

"Ingrid callate la jeta!! Stay in France"

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on Jan 11, 2008, 21:44:

Mario : Because that money just "pours" into Colombia all at once and is just automatically pocketed, with no specific destination or assignment, right? What morons, all those guys in the U.S. Congress who just approve amounts of money blindly and with no classification...

...nope, not really, not to mention that a lot of it goes right back to the U.S. because it pays for contractors (half of the 2006 aid, in fact, had such a destination), if it ever leaves the original country in the first place. This isn't a case of showering dollars to Colombia, when much of the aid is spent in services which the U.S. itself arranges and pays for.

Plus, for the Nth time, U.S. aid to Colombia isn't that huge when you compare it to Colombia's own budget, or even just the defense portion of it, whether you do so year by year or over a whole bunch of them. You aren't going to see me crying over reductions or cuts.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on Jan 11, 2008, 22:19:

Except that not all countries are equal in terms of their own budgets, so U.S. aid might represent far more (or less) in the other cases. Plus, with the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, what is U.S. aid has become somewhat skewed...a lot more money is being spent there then elsewhere at this time.

You also seem to assume that it's all money the U.S. can physically or virtually "send" to Colombia, when it doesn't even need to be in cash or credit in the first place, when it pays for services, contractors, training, maintenance or equipment originated in the U.S. itself. In some cases there will be a need for cash, but in others that's not really the point.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

billyb says on Jan 11, 2008, 22:34:

"Airport exit tax? Fu€k the airport tax."

Be happy if that's the least of your problems.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

msaucey says on Jan 11, 2008, 23:06:

If Chavez is embracing FARC sooooooo much, FARC and ELN need to move to the Venezuelan jungle... Heck, I'm sure that they would all be heroes in Chavez's eyes....

The trouble about trying to make yourself stupider than you really are is that you very often succeed. - CS Lewis

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Desi1 (Moderator) says on Jan 12, 2008, 04:37:

Insurgency (also called insurrection) is defined as the quality or state of being insurgent; specifically : a condition of revolt against a government that is less than an organized revolution and that is not recognized as belligerency
2: insurgence
(Merriam-webster, my favorite on-line dictionary)
The problem is that for us, with no dead or kidnapped people in the family, it's important to make a difference between propaganda and analysis. I don't wan to be shouted down by people who speak out of personal and justified hatred for the FARC.

Also, I resent the difamatory comments in which we who try to look for answers to UNDERSTAND the guerrilla, their actual state, their motivation, their history and their future plans are automatically qualified by some hotheads who speak before they think as SUPPORTERS.

I don't believe there is ONE PERSON on this forum who does not condemn terrorism as a strategy or criminal activity like kidnapping or drug trafficking or extortion, but I believe there are several who would like to find out how to bring an end to this conflict without sacrificing the lives of the hostages or without any future bloodshed.

Ideally, the capture of Marulanda, Mono Jojoy, Jorge Briceño etc. and the rest of the ruthless top tier of the guerrilla would probably bring it to an end; the rest of the guerrilla, the recruits and peasants forced to their files would probably just adhere to national recovery plan and give up their arms.

It looks like an impossible mission, though.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

PALEOLITICO says on Jan 12, 2008, 05:24:

Esta propuesta es lo mas absurdo que he escuchado. Es una total falta de respeto del presidente Chavez para con el pueblo colombiano que ha sufrido durante décadas los ataques de este grupo. No es a su pais al que le han puesto bombas, al que le han asesinado miles de personas, no es en su pais en donde se reclutan niños para hacer parte de la guerra, ni es allí donde se secuestran personas y se les mantiene en condiciones inumanas para luego asesinarlos cruelmente. Cómo se atreve entonces a proponer tal cosa??. Sólo encuentro una respuesta: Esa fue la condición que las FARC le puso a él para poder entregarle a Clara y a Consuelo. Es muy obvio esto.

CHAVEZ es un peligro. Es una bomba de tiempo, es un guerrillero disfrazado, amangualado con la guerrilla.

"Amar a las personas y usar las cosas; y no amar a las cosas y usar a las personas"

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Desi1 (Moderator) says on Jan 12, 2008, 05:37:

Sabes? Fue lo primero que pensé yo cuando lo leí. Que esa debe haber la condición exigida por los FARC y el precio de la liberación. Estoy de desacuerdo contigo sobre el papel de Chavez. No veo el peligro que el presenta para la seguridad nacional. Por supuesto que no tengo una bola de cristal ni puedo leer los pensamientos de Chavez pero no percibo ese peligro de que tanto hablan para el estado colombiano.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

webmanco says on Jan 12, 2008, 05:50:

Chavez no representa ningún peligro, es un medio de ayuda por muy loco y boquisuelto que sea. El peligro esta en nosotros mismos que no podemos resolver nuestros problemas y permitimos en muchos casos la mala administracion de nuestros recursos.

El peligro esta en la doble moral, mala educación, falta de trabajo bien remunerado, falta de inversion social.

Muchos en este foro han de aprender de las recien liberadas que a pesar de haberse suspendido su vida durante 6 años o más, no tuvieron reparo en despedirse de beso en la mejilla de las guerrilleras. Qué más victimas directas que ellas mismas, son lecciones de humanidad, mientras aquí se critica a Piedad quien hizo lo posible, hasta lo que Elmo hubiese hecho con tal de que lo sacaran a el de la selva. Piedad no medio para salir ella de la selva, medió para que liberaran a otros. El protagonismo se lo estamos dando nosotros, los medios.

En verdad somos desagradecidos

Enero 12 2008 TRM 1985

(I really hate it when women get their panties all bunched up their butt, they can get so cranky!) Poor butt happy

0 funny, 0 helpful.

robi666 says on Jan 12, 2008, 06:10:

You know Desi and Webmanco, I don't see the danger either.

But one thing I know. If I was a Colombian who had one of the family killed or kidnapped by FARC, I'd know my place would be right there with Mancuso and the others, or still fighting en el monte. And Chavez and Piedad Cordoba would be declared "objectivos militares". Asi es sencillo.

So, I understand Colombians on this board and their anger. They are good person and I sympathize with them.
Besos?
Que respeten, por dios!

"I am a citizen of the most beautiful nation on earth. A nation whose laws are harsh yet simple, a nation that never cheats, which is immense and without borders, where life is lived in the present."

0 funny, 0 helpful.

catherine b says on Jan 12, 2008, 06:24:

Even Clara Rojas is alarmed by Chavez asking to have farc and ELN removed from the list of terrorist organizations.
http://www.eitb24.com/noticia/es/B24_82660/internacional/SEIS-ANOS-SEC...
Clara Rojas ha hecho referencia también a la guerrilla. Ha asegurado que las FARC son una organización delictiva por mantener a varios rehenes secuestrados. "Me preocupa que digan que son el Ejército del pueblo. Yo veo que de alguna manera tienen una organización. En principio parecería que son una organización delictiva. Tienen gente secuestrada, de donde surgen sus dineros y una serie de adicciones, las bombas, los hechos que se han probado como magnicidio" ha dicho.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

slguy says on Jan 12, 2008, 06:38:

"Also, I resent the difamatory comments in which we who try to look for answers to UNDERSTAND the guerrilla"

Therein lies the difference, Des. Most of us don't give a damn what their motivations are, in the same way we couldn't give a damn what Son of Sam's or Hitler's inner motivations were. Who cares? What's important is the inhumane behavior, NOT the motivation. I couldn't care less WHY they bomb buildings full of women and children, why they take children from their families, why they kidnap people, or why they have big narco networks. There's a right way and a wrong to effect political change, if this is one's true motivation. None of the above are included.

I neither live in Colombia, nor have family kidnapped/killed by these animals, and I despise everything about them. I can only imagine the depths of my hatred, if I was more directly affected by them

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

0 funny, 0 helpful.

catherine b says on Jan 12, 2008, 06:47:

El gobierno argentino tomó distancia del pedido del líder venezolano.

http://www.lanacion.com.ar/edicionimpresa/exterior/nota.asp?nota_id=97...

El gobierno argentino se despegó ayer del pedido del presidente Hugo Chávez en favor de las Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia (FARC). Según dijeron a LA NACION fuentes de la Cancillería, la Argentina mantendrá su participación de "carácter humanitario" para favorecer en Colombia la liberación de rehenes, pero "no hará consideraciones que puedan interpretarse como una intromisión en su política interna".

Las fuentes indicaron que el país "adhiere a lo que sostuvo casi todo el continente ante el Consejo de Seguridad de las Naciones Unidas". Allí Estados Unidos y Colombia son los únicos países que consideran a las FARC un grupo terrorista. Para el resto, es una fuerza insurgente.

"No existen razones para que la Argentina cambie su política histórica", dijeron en la Cancillería.

Según la ONU, un "grupo terrorista" es aquel hace uso de "la violencia contra población civil no combatiente, con el objeto de condicionar al Estado". Un "grupo insurgente", en cambio, no tiene como objetivo primario la población civil.

"Una agrupación insurgente planifica organizadamente un desafío político. Reemplazar una forma de gobierno por otra", explicó a LA NACION Fabián Calle, profesor de Relaciones Internacionales (UBA-UCA). A diferencia de la mayoría de los países americanos, también la Unión Europea (UE) considera a las FARC un grupo terrorista.

En el Gobierno ayer evitaron opinar sobre el pedido del líder venezolano sobre el grupo guerrillero. "Cualquier valoración podría interpretarse como una intromisión en la política colombiana", justificaron fuentes oficiales.

Visita a la Argentina

El eje de la participación en Colombia será "humanitaria", con el objetivo de "favorecer la liberación de rehenes", aseguraron en el Gobierno.

Por eso, el canciller Jorge Taiana ayer celebró el anuncio de que las dos rehenes liberadas, Clara Rojas y Consuelo González, viajarán a Buenos Aires para "agradecerle personalmente" a la presidenta Cristina Kirchner por la participación argentina en el operativo de liberación.

Durante la mañana de ayer, Taiana mantuvo una comunicación telefónica con la senadora colombiana Piedad Córdoba: ambos coordinaron un visita de Rojas y González para fines de enero.

Luego, el canciller habló con las rehenes liberadas. Según fuentes oficiales, González y Rojas le transmitieron su "inmenso agradecimiento" a la Argentina. El canciller aprovechó para ratificar la política argentina: "No vamos a olvidar a los que todavía están allá. La Argentina va a seguir contribuyendo y dando toda su colaboración y apoyo de la manera que sea más efectiva".

Fue apenas unas horas antes del pedido de Chávez en favor de las FARC. Según especialistas consultados por LA NACION, la exigencia "al mundo" del líder venezolano en realidad encierra un reclamo directo al presidente colombiano, Alvaro Uribe.

"Chávez muestra un acuerdo con la FARC. Un cambio de consideración facilitaría eventuales negociaciones", opinó el analista Carlos Escudé.

Para el experto en relaciones internacionales Jorge Castro supondría, además, que los detenidos de las FARC pasaran de ser considerados "criminales" a "presos de guerra", algo difícil de aceptar para el gobierno de Uribe.

"Igual, en definitiva, todo es siempre una cuestión política", opinó Calle. "No hay nada que impida negociaciones con las FARC. De hecho, Uribe negocia con los paramilitares, desde 2005, y también los considera terroristas".

0 funny, 0 helpful.

tasco66 says on Jan 12, 2008, 07:23:

Chavez: ¿ Por que no te callas ?

Bravo, Presidente Uribe for the perfect operation!

0 funny, 0 helpful.

bamacellist says on Jan 12, 2008, 07:50:

"eventually a Colombian government that does not put US interests above Colombia's may come to power."

This isn't what he means. He means: "Hopefully, soon a Colombian government that puts Chavez's interests above Colombia's will come to power."

"The great thing about human language is that it prevents us from sticking to the matter at hand."

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Sr Tertius says on Jan 12, 2008, 08:00:

I don't get it, slguy. I don't know who is the "us" you refer to, but most reasonable people try to understand the motivation of criminals to catch them. To say "what matters is the crime" is to state the obvious.

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

0 funny, 0 helpful.

vladimiro says on Jan 12, 2008, 08:02:

I wouldn't worry about that bamecellist. Venezuela is not the Soviet Union. Its a third world country that does not have a strong enough economy to have much influence beyond its borders anyway. There is only One country comparable to the Soviet Union in the world today.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

slguy says on Jan 12, 2008, 08:16:

How exactly will understanding the motivations of these animals help catch them, T? Their motivations leave a trail thru the jungle?

Understanding their motivations is a valid approach IF one's goal is to "negotiate" a solution with them. As has been beaten to death in prior threads/posts, it's fairly obvious by now that negotiating with these thugs is an exercise in futility.

Boots on the ground seems to be the only solution. Lacking sufficient boots to eliminate them, containment is the valid option, which Uribe seems to understand. Sooner or later, the opportunity will present itself to eliminate the leaders. Old age, if nothing else.

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

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Sr Tertius says on Jan 12, 2008, 08:43:

If they are in it for the money (usual but wrong assumption), you can consider buying out their middle officers, attacking their financial support, etc.

If they are psychopathic (also usual, also wrong), then use the kind of tactics to catch serial killers, with psych profiles and stuff like that.

If they are romantic Robin Hoods (not so usual, still wrong), then undermine their claims by providing minimum social services in remote areas.

If they want political power, then there's a different strategy to follow.

(Truth, of course, lies somewhere in between all these options, and some more)

Whatever their motivation is, covering your eyes and saying "they're bad, they're bad" is not precisely the most intelligent option. It usually leads to bad ideas, like "boots on the ground" or "containment" which were the cause of the whole problem in the first place.

Negotiation is not a goal, but merely a tactic. If the government can effectively eliminate FARC by means of force, it should do it--but it knows very well it can't. So, if the government can't beat them militarily, and it has something FARC wants, THEN negotiation can be considered. What I've seen in prior threads is just inarticulate yelling, a contest on who can string more adjectives behind the noun "Chavez." It got old already, at least for me.

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

0 funny, 0 helpful.

robi666 says on Jan 12, 2008, 09:04:

Slguy,
government negotiated with paras, why not with FARC?

"I am a citizen of the most beautiful nation on earth. A nation whose laws are harsh yet simple, a nation that never cheats, which is immense and without borders, where life is lived in the present."

0 funny, 0 helpful.

vladimiro says on Jan 12, 2008, 09:18:

Only the Americans and the FARC benefit from the hostile relations between Venezuela and Colombia.

The incident shows how dangerous it could be for Colombia to aggravate further relations with its nieghbors. The FARC take refuge in the border areas of Ecuador and Venezuela and have now taken advantage of Uribe's hostility towards Venezuela to get political recognition in that country.

In the 90s, it was the use of an airport in Brazil that enabled the Colombian military to finally retake the town held by the FARC. The FARC had beat off all Colombian military efforts, and the aid of a neighboring country was needed.

Using insulting language against the governments of neighboring countries is stupid. It achieves nothing but drumming up some petty patriotic support for Uribe while damaging the country's ability to fight the FARC.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

robi666 says on Jan 12, 2008, 09:20:

"Why do you never speak of the others abuses in Colombia ?
Ask the question is answering it ..."

Two main reasons:
1) prime target of FARC are wealthy people and soldiers. Prime target of paras WERE not and probably they do not post on the Internet.
2) the war is with FARC, not anymore with AUC.

"I am a citizen of the most beautiful nation on earth. A nation whose laws are harsh yet simple, a nation that never cheats, which is immense and without borders, where life is lived in the present."

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Desi1 (Moderator) says on Jan 12, 2008, 09:22:

Slguy, that's exactly the difference. You have pointed it out. I don't believe in military solution.
There's only one way that I see possible and that's negotiated and mediated peace in Colombia, now. Not more bloodshed that would only create more hatred and divide the country even deeper, especially if the hostages would be sacrificed in the process and the question remains academic since it doesn't seem to be possible either. Uribe had his chance at it; time is running out. To cure the cancer of insurrection is to go to the root of the conflict: unequal distribution of wealth, class society, poverty and lack of opportunities for almost everybody not living in or in the vicinity of cities and bigger towns, corruption, political indolence and immaturity, clientilismo....etc.etc...

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Sr Tertius says on Jan 12, 2008, 09:22:

"the war is with FARC, not anymore with AUC."

Not that paramilitary activity has ceased.

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

0 funny, 0 helpful.

catherine b says on Jan 12, 2008, 09:24:

While the UN has been unable to agree on a definition of terrorism, on March 17, 2005, a UN panel described terrorism as any act "intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act."

Sounds like farc to me.

www.un.org/webcast/pdfs/terrorism9june.pdf

0 funny, 0 helpful.

robi666 says on Jan 12, 2008, 09:25:

No, I wrote AUC for a reason Sr T.
Technically, it is not anymore AUC, but common criminals.

"I am a citizen of the most beautiful nation on earth. A nation whose laws are harsh yet simple, a nation that never cheats, which is immense and without borders, where life is lived in the present."

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on Jan 12, 2008, 09:32:

vladimiro: "The incident shows how dangerous it could be for Colombia to aggravate further relations with its nieghbors. The FARC are active in the border areas of Ecuador and Venezuela and have now taken advantage of Uribe's hostility towards Venezuela to get political recognition in that country."

While that's a factor, I wouldn't say that's the only reason. The Venezuelan government itself probably didn't pull this out of hat, you know...and not just because of Uribe's mishandling of the situation, though that's also a part of it.

As for how "dangerous" it is, that depends, but it's too early to tell. For now, Argentina has already publicly distanced itself from Venezuela's remarks, which is hardly going to make Chávez or FARC happy. France, speaking about removal from the EU terror list, also said that this isn't a decision which can be taken by individual governments, and that FARC should free the hostages first.

"In the 90s, it was the use of an airport in Brazil that enabled to Colombian military to finally retake the town held by the FARC - they had succefully beat off all Colombian military efforts."

Not exactly. The town in question was Mitú in 1998. The entire ordeal, from beginning to end, lasted no more than three days, and there were really no previous Colombian military efforts to take it back. The use of the Brazilian airport, with official authorization, was necessary because, at the time, there were no other nearby alternatives within range. That hardly means much in the current context, however, considering all that has happened in the meanwhile, including in terms of purely military matters.

"Using insulting language against the governments of neighboring countries is stupid. It achieves nothing but drumming up some petty patriotic support for Uribe while damaging the country's ability to fight the FARC."

I fully agree with the first part, but not necessarily with that last one.

0 funny, 0 helpful.