Noam Chomsky's statement supporting the vigil on March 6

Medellin Traveler says on Feb 18, 2008, 13:12:

The march against FARC has definitely empowered the masses in Colombia!

GREAT NEWS!

Medellin Es Una Chimba! - www.medellintraveler.com

huskie says on Feb 18, 2008, 13:17:

Thanks Desi, this is great!
Cheers

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

ColombianoGringo says on Feb 18, 2008, 13:22:

Nice to see that he owns up to the US share of the responsibility for the mess in Colombia. However, I find it disturbing and somewhat offensive that he did not mention the horrors that guerrilla criminals have inflicted on the Colombian people. Was he this passionate about supporting the march against the FARC? If not, then his opinion is worthless.

Just to clarify, I am fully in support of marching against the paramilitaries. However, I find it pathetic that so many pop-culture intellectuals always seem to land on the side of the "people's army". By doing so, they demonstrate their extreme ignorance.

ColombianoGringo says on Feb 18, 2008, 13:34:

I just did a little searching through that website. Their mission statement appears to be the only place they briefly mention the guerrilla groups. I can't say that I agree with all of their stated goals.

aztec says on Feb 18, 2008, 14:06:

Desideria, You know how most Americans feel about Noam Chomsky so I won't burden you again with our disgust of him and his perverted statements. Instead I will ask you what is happening off your own coastline?

Jets intercept Russian fighters
2/18/2008

"Oslo - Norwegian and British fighter jets scrambled to intercept Russian bombers over the north Atlantic, Norway's military command said on Thursday, the latest in a series of such incidents.

Eight Russian Tupolev-95s were detected in international air space over the Barents Sea early on Thursday, said Wing Commander Jon Inge Oegland, a spokesperson for Norway's general staff in Stavanger."

http://www.news24.com/News24/World/News/0,,2-10-1462_2178364,00.html

juancegomez says on Feb 18, 2008, 14:09:

My opinions on Chomsky and the CSN itself notwithstanding, as well as whatever I could nitpick in their respective statements regarding this matter...the important thing is that those who participate in any of the programmed events, or in any other manner, have their own personal convictions and intentions clear.

If that is the case, then that's more than enough.

gatogris says on Feb 18, 2008, 14:13:

As a public intellectual, Noam is an ideologue, I don't think even he in his private movements would bother to argue otherwise.

However, he is so strategically, because he believes strongly that the issues that he brings to the forefront of public debate, oppression/repression/imperialism directed against the powerless by the forces of reaction, are those most commonly swept under the rug, particularly in the West, where we like to think of ourselves as acting with an ethical imperative.

Plus the good thing about ol Noam is you can attack him on his arguements, argue data with him, and he won't simply deny your right to disagree. He's even good for a few yuks from time to time.

As an eminence grise of the neo-Marxist left, we could do a lot worse.

ColombianoGringo says on Feb 18, 2008, 14:13:

I think that the specific message that is conveyed by the marches is very important. A participant's personal convictions mean little and are not well communicated if they differ substantially from the stated intentions and purpose of such a march. If one disagrees with the publicized "message" of a demonstration, then why participate?

gatogris says on Feb 18, 2008, 14:21:

Juance, that's for sure, I think we've had it hammered into us with railroad spikes that lasting change in this country ain't going to come from elites. It's got to be from below.

ColombianoGringo says on Feb 18, 2008, 14:24:

The man is a linguist after after all. It's not like he is some expert on Colombian affairs or much else for that matter. Nice to see I'm not the only one who thinks he's full of hot air.

I am about sick of these media darling "intellectuals" in all shades of the political spectrum.

juancegomez says on Feb 18, 2008, 14:33:

CG: The specific political interpretations and consequences may differ, depending on who decides to take advantage of the situation.

But that, IMHO, doesn't mean that personal convictions are meaningless in the midst of everything else, if they do have something to do with the main objective of the march or mobilization.

One can disagree with some of the specific proclamations and slogans made by other participants, while still sharing the general ideas in and around the mobilization.

The official invitation to the anti-paras/state crimes event (vigil, march, concentration or whatever), the one in Spanish at least, isn't inherently anti-Uribe, for example. The invitation to the anti-FARC march wasn't inherently anti-humanitarian exchange or anti-peace talks either, for example.

All that happened back in February 4th, and it will likely also happen on March 6th.

Some people felt the need to fall into anti-Chávez and anti-Piedad Córdoba commentary, but most of those I heard and saw were concentrated on criticizing FARC and demanding freedom for the hostages.

I'm sure some people will fall into anti-Uribe and anti-state slogans, exclusively, but I wouldn't be surprised if many of those there do not have that in mind, or won't say so explicitly at least.

Being against paramilitarism and against those crimes committed by the state doesn't mean one is against the state or even necessarily against Uribe...despite the fact that, of course, there is some inevitable overlap.

I don't think everyone, for example, will automatically share all of Chomsky's opinions about Colombia either.

gatogris says on Feb 18, 2008, 14:39:

Well, CG, to be fair Chomsky's been writing about US/Colombia relations since at least 1988, and the great thing about US academia is research assistants - he's had those little busy elves digging up stats for him in his workshop now for nigh unto 20 years.

Now how he uses that stuff can be a little suspect to be sure, but give the whitebeard his due, he managed to worm his way into a position where he can marshall some pretty credible arguments, even if his speaking tours and vanity projects keep him out of the library personally. The ivory tower is no different from K street.

greg says on Feb 18, 2008, 15:20:

I like Noam Chomsky. I read his book Hegemony or Survival. Some Americans don`t like him because they can`t deal with the fact he might be right. Good to see he supports the
vigil

diabloblas says on Feb 18, 2008, 15:23:

agree greg..but you'll get crucified by many on this poor excuse for political debate thread...

...same can be said for howard zinn...his book the people's history of usa is another good read that many flag pin wearing so called patriots hate as well

podborski says on Feb 18, 2008, 15:24:

so did he support the anti FARC march? if not, why not?

juancegomez says on Feb 18, 2008, 16:09:

You tell me, although one can speculate...but even so, I still think what matters is the event itself, the general ideas around it and the personal convictions of those involved, not whatever Chomsky says or wants to read into it (not to mention whatever he ignores, omits, or is simply incorrect about).

gatogris says on Feb 18, 2008, 16:18:

Yep, anytime a pundit like him uses a phrase like "to our everlasting shame" I get a little suspicious. Does he really expect us to believe that he goes to bed every night wringing his hands and saying his agnostic mea culpas? That's a bit much.

But the marchers on the other hand, the people who live this reality, now they have a real say in how change gets done.

aztec says on Feb 18, 2008, 16:24:

My point is that just the mention of his name in association with the marches causes a loss of credibility with people who can provide substantive assistance to the Colombian people. Don't believe for one minute Noam Chomsky has any effective influence with the decision makers in the United States. On the contrary, he can cause a rapid loss of support because he will convert the Colombian FARC problem onto one involving the " evil Empire"!

diabloblas says on Feb 18, 2008, 16:32:

you're right aztec...they didn't listen to norm on the iraq war...to their detriment they will be paying for this a long time...their kids & grandkids as well

billyb says on Feb 18, 2008, 17:01:

Pod, i'm confused also. Has Noamie ever expounded against the FARC? Or is he another leftist that is selective in his outrage on crimes against humanity? Never read him so i'm open. Desi, did he ever do a paper on Pol Pot? I'd be interested in reading what he had to say there.

diabloblas says on Feb 18, 2008, 17:45:

he's a pacifist billyb...left or right

greg says on Feb 18, 2008, 18:22:

I would say read his books and make up your own mind about him. And he did write about Pol Pot. Problem is he wrote about how the illegal bombing campaign in Cambodia helped give rise to the Kmer Rouge. He was attacked and called a Pol Pot apologist because no one wanted to hear about U.S. complicity.

billyb says on Feb 18, 2008, 18:25:

But he made no comments on Pol Pot's atrocities? Or he did and blamed it on the US (shocker), jaja, no wonder Desi likes him? He doesn't sound very intellectually honest to me.

podborski says on Feb 18, 2008, 18:56:

what I don't get billyb is why these guys (there's a few on PBH) are afraid to say where they stand?

I'm a free market capitalist, not hiding anything. My biases are out in the open.

Do they think we can't guess where their sympathies are? Do they think they fool anyone into believing they are some kind of impartial, objective observer with no skin in the game?

I guess it's consistent with their view that poor, dumb schmucks like us can't run our own lives, we need these brilliant bureaucrats to make our decisions for us.

They think we can't see right through them.

Just my guess anyway.

rocinante says on Feb 18, 2008, 19:31:

Aztec - you really think having Chomsky on your side is counterproductive? Or do you just dislike the man? I think the answer is obvious. Chomsky may not have any power in Washington but did the marcher's on Feb 4th?

Some people think Jello Biafra was not really saying "Pol Pot" at the end of "Holiday in Cambodia". Great guitar riff by East Bay Ray. Going to sleep...

"Well you'll work harder
With a gun in your back
For a bowl of rice a day
Slave for soldiers
Till you starve
Then your head is skewered on a stake"

"World economic indicators point to a democrat winning 2008. It will surely be Obama. Peso 1400 by November" Feb 5, 2008

SiV says on Feb 18, 2008, 20:02:

Here's a quote of Chomsky I found on the web regarding the Farc:

Interviewer: You visited the indigenous of Cauca recently, and now they are being hit quite hard from all quarters-- the FARC, the paramilitaries, and aerial fumigation from the US. Why is that? Do their achievements qualify as the kind of 'threat of a good example' that has to be destroyed?

Chomsky: (I cut out a bit to make it succint). . . the guerrillas have "sought to manipulate the social movements," and it is clear from personal testimonies that they -- particularly FARC -- are feared by campesinos, Afro-Colombians, and indigenous people, and that FARC has lost its former social program as the conflict has become increasingly militarized. . .

Link http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=2104

As the man above says, he's a pacifist, so one can only assume he's against the violent, terroristic aspect of the Farc, as I hope we all are.

Personally, I find Chomsky's arguments interesting and often compelling, though to be honest, I think his knowledge on Colombia is rather sketchy from what I have read (quite a lot of his stuff).

As for not being afraid to state where you "stand" politically, I just don't think it's as simple as that. Political labels carry all sorts of connotations, and your mental image of Label A is different to the next person's. Similarly, as people we are full of contradictions. Perhaps I would catergorise myself as a social democrat, or maybe a social liberal, either of which I imagine in your eyes would constitute a leftist POV. However, I also have certain views which could be considered, even by you, as right-wing (e.g. I'm quite anti-abortionist in certain of the subject's facets), or maybe even your rejection the state control could be regarded as anarchist, or at least anarcho-capitalism. In short, nobody likes to be pigeon-holed or limit themselves.

An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. Mahatma Gandhi

Mario says on Feb 18, 2008, 20:28:

Noam Chomsky is one of the coolest people left on the planet in my book. He's the type of guy who would make the perfect president - but never get elected because he would never cRater to special interests.

And CG, you're not quite right. Noam makes it his business to absorb as much as possible about the things that concern him, and which Colombia apparently does among other things. He deserves the credit for getting informed rather than remaining ignorant and aloof like 299,937,563 other U.S. citizens are comfortable doing.

I went to see him speak at Rice University and he was phenomenal.

podborski says on Feb 18, 2008, 21:12:

labels are misleading SiV, I agree, but I'm not asking for labels, just what ideas you support.

Best label for me is 'classical liberal', but that doesn't mean much to a lot of people.

Almost everyone would label me extremely right wing, but I am an atheist who believes a woman's body is her own, and an embryo is not a human life, at least not until a certain point in time.

But there are a few regulars here who always apologize for certain terrorists/dictators, yet are unwilling to state openly their biases. It is an anonymous forum after all, not like anyone in the real world will know.

Desideria (Moderator) says on Feb 18, 2008, 21:42:

Aztec, almost everybody known to me personally who likes Noam Chomsky is American. He's much less well-known over here, just like the other celebrity we're discussing off-topic, Ayn Rand. These are American icons. Most people have very definite opinions about them and at least what they think they know about them. I know next to nothing. It's just that what I know, what I have read has impressed me in a good way.

"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." —Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

Sr Tertius says on Feb 18, 2008, 22:51:

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

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

Lcacique says on Feb 18, 2008, 23:55:

I find that most people who criticize Noam are those who have not read his work. Anybody that has would know that Noam does not support the FARC (or any violent terrorist group for that matter). By criticizing state terrorism it does not follow that he supports rebel groups involved in terrorism. So what if he focuses on the US governments involvement in atrocities. There are plenty of people publishing books that paint the US as the saviour of the free world. What is wrong with questioning that perspective. He has long been a critic of US foreign policy and he has often been correct in his assessment of our governments goals abroad.

In addition, I find it strange that so many people hate a man that advocates peace and liberation. I think it says a lot more about the critics than it does about Noam.

Many who throw stones at Noam are simply non-thinking nationalists who spit out their jingoist slogans without offering anything of value to the debate.

The comment above about him being a linguist, implying that he therefore is not versed in other topics is narrow minded. One does not need to attend school or have formal training to obtain knowledge on a subject. Nor are we incapable of understanding more than one topic. Who would you suggest should discuss such topics? Politicians?

Nice quote Sr Tertius. I just heard last night while watching Amelie, however, it was a variation:

The fool stares at the finger that points to the sky.

Hoy se nota en la floresta un ambiente de alegría. ¡Y el rumor de ranchería es mas dulce y sabe a fiesta!

Lcacique says on Feb 19, 2008, 00:13:

ColombianoGringo:

What about the CSN's mission statement do you disagree with? Just curious...I find it rather benign.

Not picking on you by the way. I think we agree on a few points.

Hoy se nota en la floresta un ambiente de alegría. ¡Y el rumor de ranchería es mas dulce y sabe a fiesta!

Rubito says on Feb 19, 2008, 07:31:

I'm very familiar with Chomsky. I think he's an idiot with his warped take on language and its function in culture, but I think he's an even bigger idiot as far as geopolitics is concerned.

He also comes off to me as very ETHNOCENTRIC regarding Colombia, like as if the ONLY thing that defines it is the bloodshed.

---Violence is the price of freedom.---

ColombianoGringo says on Feb 19, 2008, 07:49:

Lcacique,

I don't know too much about them, so I can only judge them based on what they publish in their website and a few other sources. For one, I don't like that they seem to focus all their negative statements on the military and police. They also mention the paramilitaries, but appear to very rarely say anything about the guerrillas. The Colombian military and the various police agencies have certainly been responsible for some reprehensible criminal acts. The paras are some evil bastards that are getting off way too easy. I agree with them on these points, but in my view, the fact that they almost completely ignore the guerrillas really calls into question the CSN's legitimacy.

Also, I strongly disagree with ending US military support to Colombia. I think Plan Colombia needs to be modified in certain ways. For example, the US should immediately stop the chemical eradication funding completely as it is useless and causes serious environmental and health damages. However, the US funding of the military and police has been critical in helping realize the significant increases in safety and military gains against the FARC in certain parts of Colombia.

borat says on Feb 19, 2008, 11:04:

Noam Chomsky - 'At War With Asia'. 'Reasons of State'. 'Deterring democracy'.

All contain extracts on American carpet bombing of South Cambodia and the subsiquent uprising of the khmer Rouge with the attrocities that followed, carried out by Pol Pot and his organisation.

what you believe is not important, it's what you do that counts

huskie says on Feb 19, 2008, 11:48:

Noam Chomsky has been engaged in political activism all of his adult life and expressed opinions on politics and world events which are widely cited, publicized and discussed. Chomsky has in turn argued that his views are those which the powerful do not want to hear, and for this reason he is considered an American political dissident. Some highlights of his political views:

On Power:
unless justified, is inherently illegitimate. The burden of proof is on those in authority to demonstrate why their elevated position is justified. If this burden can't be met, the authority in question should be dismantled. Authority for its own sake is inherently unjustified. An example of a legitimate authority is that exerted by an adult to prevent a young child from wandering into traffic

That there isn't much difference between slavery, and renting one's self to an owner, or "wage slavery." He feels that it is an attack on personal integrity that destroys and undermines our freedoms. He holds that those that work in the mills should run them.

Very strong criticisms of the foreign Policy of the Unites States, Specifically, he denounces the double standards (which he labels the "single standard") of the US government, which result in massive human rights violations. Chomsky argues that while the U.S. may preach democracy and freedom for all, the U.S. has a history of promoting, supporting and allying itself with non-democratic and repressive organizations and states. He often argues that America's intervention in foreign nations, including the secret aid given to the Contras in Nicaragua, an event of which he has been very critical, fits any standard description of terrorism .
Chomsky has stated that he believes the United States remains the "greatest country in the world," a comment that he later clarified by saying, "Evaluating countries is senseless and I would never put things in those terms, but that some of America's advances, particularly in the area of free speech, that have been achieved by centuries of popular struggle, are to be admired."
I am a fan of the guy.
Cheers

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

Lcacique says on Feb 19, 2008, 11:58:

ColombianoGringo:

I agree that the CSN focuses heavily on the paras, police and military. This may have to do with the fact that the US is both directly and indirectly involved with those groups; therefore, they may feel that by focusing their attention on the aforementioned groups they will have the greatest impact. They seem to be interested in ensuring that the US does not involve itself in terrorist activities within Colombia in order to combat terrorism; therefore, why focus on the FARC? The US government has no relationship with them.

As for military aid, I agree that Colombia has benefited in many ways from such aid; however, the US government needs to continually pressure the Colombian government to hold soldiers to a high standard considering that it was not long ago that their military had one of the worst human rights records in the region. They have improved and that is EXTREMELY commendable, but this does not mean that there should not be transparency and oversight (I feel the same is true of our military and police). In addition, the State gains a lot against the rebels by convicting soldiers and paras who have participated in crimes against innocent members of society. It is a sure fire way to decrease the FARC base.

Overall, I agree with you that groups should stress the importance of condemning all actors involved in human rights violations. I have always maintained that there is plenty of blame to go around (the US included).

Hoy se nota en la floresta un ambiente de alegría. ¡Y el rumor de ranchería es mas dulce y sabe a fiesta!

diabloblas says on Feb 19, 2008, 11:59:

very well said huskie...he also had good company with the late barry goldwater who called the mining of nigaragua's harbor a terroristic act of war

ColombianoGringo says on Feb 19, 2008, 12:35:

Sadly, all the peace marches in the world will not change the fact that Colombia will never have peace and order until it has a justice system that is much more than a pitiful joke. A good percentage of paras and guerrilleros will never become peaceful, productive members of society and they need to be dealt with accordingly.

Two year sentences for paras who massacre entire towns and government aid for guerrilleros who blow up innocent civilians will do nothing but continue to reinforce the lawless attitude that prevails in many parts of Colombian society. Colombia needs severe sentences for these types of crimes. The thing that is most sorely needed is a death penalty for any guerrilla, para, or military leaders who are involved in massacres, bombings, kidnapping and other forms of terrorism.

gatogris says on Feb 19, 2008, 12:53:

Two things about Chomsky.

First, despite the massive political and economic changes that have occurred in world events over the past 40 years, his analysis over this period is remarkably consistent in its interpretation of events. His analysis seems as unshaken by geopolitical events such as the end of the Cold War as it does by the uncertainties generated within academia. The second thing is that most academic assessments of his contribution to debates in world affairs find his analysis wanting in various ways. Usually his work is written off as being partial in some way, and only worthy of mention because it is representative of some unfavourably narrow and therefore faulty interpretation, which is nevertheless ‘popular’ with a certain (even if quite large) section of the public. Critics are liable to dismiss him for being a mere conspiracy theorist, a Marxist, an instrumentalist or, worse still, some mixture of all three.

But the fact of the matter is that these critiques are almost always leveled (except in the case of Chris Hitchens) by pedantic, stuffed-shirt academics who are much less well known. Chomsky is a rock star to many on the politcally engaged left (mostly in th US as Desi points out), they just dig his rap, man, the cat has coolness if you can feel me on this one. He sells out auditoriums up and down the campus circuit, and if you've never fired up a fat joint and just vibed on self-rightousness at a Chomsky sit-in, than you just haven't lived.

Those who harsh on him just hate him cause he's beautiful, ya know?

aztec says on Feb 19, 2008, 13:16:

"Chomsky is a rock star to many on the politcally engaged left" gatogris

diabloblas says on Feb 19, 2008, 13:34:

well gatogris...your buddy hitchens still thinks the iraq war was & is a good thing...pathetic people who can't admit they are wrong...just like hilary & mccain, huckabee, romney bush, cheney

...obama & chomsky were right on that one

gatogris says on Feb 19, 2008, 13:44:

Whoa, diablolas, Hitchens is no buddy of mine, he's another opportunistic public intellectual who would be good to have at a dinner party after a few glasses of pinot noir. His new book is singular only in that it tries to dismiss one of the most important creative and galvinizing forces in human history - spirituality - as an absurd delusion that should be abandoned imediately. The fact is, like Chomsky, he's turned contrarianism into lucrative book contracts, and more power to him. So did Dr. Samuel Johnson.

But never forget, as my ol uncle Horace used to say over a jar of white lightning, you know why the disagreements among academics are so vicious? Cause the stakes are so small.

gringoloid says on Feb 19, 2008, 13:46:

Chomsky is no different than any of the other globalist, elites out there.....

In his book "The Conspirator's Hierarchy," Dr. John Coleman named Chomsky as a deep cover CIA agent working to undermine social protest groups. Certainly Dr. Coleman's claims appear validated by an honest review of Chomsky's role as a Left gatekeeper.

Since 9-11, he has steadfastly refused to discuss the evidence of government complicity and prior knowledge.

Furthermore he claims that the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), Bilderberg Committee, and Trilateral Commission are "nothing organizations."

When critiquing poverty, he never mentions the Federal Reserve and their role in manipulating the cycle of debt.

Similarly, he claims the CIA was never a rogue organization and is an innocent scapegoat; that JFK was killed by the lone assassin Lee Harvey Oswald; that the obvious vote fraud in 2004 did not occur; and that peak oil is real and good for humanity.

Obviously, my kind of a guy.

kat1 (Moderator) says on Feb 19, 2008, 14:18:

My opinion is whatever this march is for it's too close to the last one, i hope we don't become a country of marching every month for difference causes, otherwise people will get bored and the real meaning of the real march (4 of February) will be lost. we don't wont to diverse the course of what we really march for and the only time we Colombians felt the necessity to show the world that we are feed up with THE FARCS... if we start marching for the paras, government, etc, people will lose interest, and it will become just another march were nobody will take notice. I think, maybe i am wrong .... but that is what i think... i personally would not come out on the 6th.

Lcacique says on Feb 19, 2008, 18:32:

Kat1, you make a good point about the marches being too close to one another. It is too bad that the "real" march did not include all of the groups that you mentioned since they share responsibility for the atrocities that have occurred in Colombia. Despite the narrow focus of the first march, it was a beautiful/important moment in Colombian history and I hope it will have a lasting impact.

Hoy se nota en la floresta un ambiente de alegría. ¡Y el rumor de ranchería es mas dulce y sabe a fiesta!

juancegomez says on Feb 20, 2008, 07:37:

The thing is, Lcacique, we've already had at least some marches which condemned all forms of violence rather generally.

As discussed previously, I think that there is a need for both: more general mobilizations against violence and ones with a specific, "narrow" focus.

webmanco says on Feb 20, 2008, 07:40:

El Pueblo esta mamado

But, I'm going to start making some assumptions here.... Which means I might actually end up making an ass out of myself ..........Thu 04 17, 2008 11:34 am

kat1 (Moderator) says on Feb 20, 2008, 07:57:

but why another March, we made it clear on the 4 of Feb, that we are against of all sort of violence , and i hope the paramilitars, el ELN and others got the point,Farc was the main focus because they have the most people kidnapped, but in General the march showed we are feed up with violence, kidnapping ect....

ColombianoGringo says on Feb 20, 2008, 08:19:

The February marches were spun by the Colombian media and government as very specifically anti-FARC. Whether this was the intention of the marchers depends on the views of each person, but to some degree, the public "message" of the marches was hijacked for political reasons. Now the government and media come out against a march against paramilitary violence. It really makes their motivations look suspect.

juancegomez says on Feb 20, 2008, 08:47:

CG: Now, let's be clear...the February 4th march was inherently and explicitly anti-FARC from the very beginning, spin or no spin. I don't think there's any question about this. Even the original Facebook group and its organizers have emphasized as much.

That doesn't mean that other forms of violence couldn't be condemned, or that there couldn't be disagreements about different issues, but the goal of that mobilization wasn't a general one, it was clearly specific in its being against FARC.

I don't think, therefore, that there was that kind of "hijacking" there. The purpose was to reject FARC, period. The rest was up to each person or groups of persons.

As for the media coming out against the new mobilization (which isn't only anti-paramilitary but also against state crimes, which introduces an element that an administration without enough self-criticism might not appreciate, to say the least)...perhaps we've been reading, hearing and watching (in that order) different outlets.

While I don't see *as much* support for it, and there probably won't be (which you may speculate about if you want), there's still time...and some mainstream outlets have, in fact, expressed their support for it in the meanwhile. EL ESPECTADOR, for example, as well as SEMANA and several radio stations/shows have expressed their solidarity.

ColombianoGringo says on Feb 20, 2008, 08:52:

I seem to remember the initial goal of the marches was more general. At one point I recall that there was a "clarification" by the government and the media that it was specifically anti-FARC.

juancegomez says on Feb 20, 2008, 09:59:

Sorry, but I don't really see how you can say that at all...

The easiest way to prove this is simple. The original Facebook group, created by the organizers, was and continues to be called "Un Millón de Voces contra las FARC".

If you go there, you can see that the first messages date from January 4th, plenty of time before the media massively picked up the story or made any of those alleged "clarifications", which you may be misremembering.

The only clarifications I recall, and which are also in that Facebook group, were made by the organizers of the march. Not by the "government or the media".

Heck, even the critics of the march make no such claim about the march not being originally anti-FARC...which is quite telling.

ColombianoGringo says on Feb 20, 2008, 10:08:

Well, I remember seeing a piece on Caracol News where they were clarifying that the march was against the FARC because some groups were advocating that it include other illegal groups.

juancegomez says on Feb 20, 2008, 10:12:

Must have been a clarification from the organizers in response to critics of the march then, who wanted to advocate in favor a wider protest, not the other way around (an originally generalized protest turned into an exclusively anti-FARC march).

Mario says on Feb 20, 2008, 10:15:

CG, were the marches anti-FARC?

Alma del Norte says on Feb 20, 2008, 10:50:

The Bogota march was very anti-FARC, anti-Chavez, some anti-CUT, POLO and there was a group of Skinhead Nazis protesting against "Puta Someone". No demonstration against anyone else.

ColombianoGringo says on Feb 20, 2008, 11:27:

Mario,

That was the general consensus. Were you able to go to the one in Houston?

Mario says on Feb 20, 2008, 15:36:

Nah, after I spoke to Diana at Mi Pueblito I tried to get off of work but we had too much going on, and there's nobody else there that does what I do.

athensugadawg says on Feb 23, 2008, 09:48:

All of you that admire Chomsky should be truly ashamed; he was a supporter and apologist for the Khmer Rouge...never forget...

http://www.newcriterion.com/archive/21/may03/chomsky.htm

and could someone please tell me how you can rationalize 9/11???

LDW says on Feb 23, 2008, 09:51:

Noam Chomsky would do pornographic sex with the devil himself as long as the devil was Anti-American.

Sr Tertius says on Feb 23, 2008, 11:27:

aahh... the paranoids that see "anti-Americanism" in a lollypop.

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

podborski says on Feb 23, 2008, 14:09:

excellent article on chomsky, I see his acolytes are ignoring it, jaja

athensugadawg says on Feb 24, 2008, 11:19:

Rather odd, I thought someone would at least muster some sort of defense, however feeble it may be. Guess that 2.5 million Cambodians can't be wrong; hell, even Jello Biafra got it right. One think that strikes me is that I cannot find any evidence that he made an attempt to travel to refugee camps for direct interviews with the displaced. It appears that he relied on second or third hand accounts to defend Pol Pot and his henchmen. Hardly professional.

Here is another Chomsky tidbit..

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=1385b76d-6c34-4c22-942a...

Hey, I certainly do not begrudge his wealth, but if you're gonna talk the talk, you better walk the walk. And trust me, the guy doesn't do coach...A1 is fine with him. But I can definitely say one thing, he can burn up a keyboard....must run through three of four expensive laptops a year!

podborski says on Feb 24, 2008, 15:10:

yeah at least I expected the usual defence: " but there were no WMDs in Iraq and Bush...."

I mean they have that line on their clipboards so it's easy to paste, how sad the lack of effort.

podborski says on Feb 24, 2008, 15:17:

that national post article is pretty good too, that must be painful to read for his followers, but i guess they can deny it's the truth since the post is a right wing rag.

But deep down we know they must really wonder....

slguy says on Feb 24, 2008, 18:55:

I think his $2,000,000 trust says all that needs to be said about Prof. Chomsky's hypocrisy.

All of you Chomsky fans I hope learn something about this obviously two-faced clown.

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

podborski says on Feb 25, 2008, 04:28:

in another thread one of the 'believers' said he found the articles 'uninteresting', and he didn't want to comment as they weren't about colombia jajajajaja!

diabloblas says on Feb 25, 2008, 07:42:

chomsky just didn't understand that 911 happened because they hate america's freedom

...now with the patriot act & the demise of the need of a court order to order surveillance of anybody..bush has greatly reduced our chances of being attacked

...why doesn't chomsky get it?

borat says on Feb 25, 2008, 12:10:

Chomsky has never condoned the genocide carried out by the Khmer Rouge, his position (and mine) was that they had the popular support of the Cambodian people to overthrow the unpopular elitist american backed Lon Nol.......... (who came to power through the aid of an american backed coup to overthrow democratically elected king Sihanouk, who would NOT let the Americans carpet bomb the south)..........after he and his mates had turned a blind eye to American carpet bombing of South Cambodia and the murder of thousands of innocent villages.

Initially the Khmer Rouge had popular grass roots support.....it's surprising what thousands of tonnes of bombs can do.

what you believe is not important, it's what you do that counts

borat says on Feb 25, 2008, 12:14:

9/11 happened because of Amercan policy and funding of that policy across the middle east. In Palestine, Lebanon, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iran, Afganistan, Syria, Lybia.....etc.

I don't for one second condone the crimes against humanity of 9/11 but if you continue to murder at will, it's going to upset some people.

what you believe is not important, it's what you do that counts

billyb says on Feb 25, 2008, 13:26:

The Koolaid dispencer must be empty after this last one got his fill.

borat says on Feb 25, 2008, 13:35:

funny

what you believe is not important, it's what you do that counts

podborski says on Feb 25, 2008, 16:36:

jesus do you think these guys actually believe what they say billyb? Is it really possible to be in that much denial?

jajaja, blame the good ol USA for the genocide committed by marxist dictator, good one!

borat, please tell me how the usa is also responsible for the millions Lenin killed, and mao's tally too. Should be funnier than your movie : )