Sen. Petro criticizes FARC, FARC responds, the Pole shakes...

Simon says on Sep 12, 2007, 14:19:

Petro saw the light and did the right thing, denounce the FARC as the monsters they are. These other Polo idiots need to get on the ball.

HERE'S SIMON!!!!

cassini77 says on Sep 12, 2007, 15:41:

Why are always idiots the people you disagree with ?
The insult is the argument of those who have no argument.
Regrettably there is a lot of people who frequent this forum and who know how to only offend the others. It is very sad.

Simon says on Sep 12, 2007, 15:54:

I consider people who defend or even sympathize somewhat with terrorists to be 'idiots'! What do you think they are?

HERE'S SIMON!!!!

cassini77 says on Sep 13, 2007, 01:00:

There are people who have a little more brain than ordinary Rambos, who open their eyes, who know that all is not white on one side and black on the other side, who know that paracos, some politicians, militaries and policemen, government people are implicated in the drugs,who try to think of the best way to get peace in this country.
If there were no people like them, the civil war would have continued in Nicaragua, Salvador and other countries.

kalder says on Sep 13, 2007, 04:27:

'Regrettably there is a lot of people who frequent this forum and who know how to only offend the others. It is very sad.'

Am I alone in detecting shades of pow wow here?

"kalder- have you ever had a woman?"--Sam Salmon

Simon says on Sep 13, 2007, 09:43:

Alright Cassini, the FARC are harmless little angels, they're just misunderstood freedom fighters, they're the good guys..........happy now?

HERE'S SIMON!!!!

billyb says on Sep 13, 2007, 09:46:

I wonder how tolerant Cassini would be if the basque separatists were bombing churches full of women and children in Paris. Would he try to understand their motives?

juancegomez says on Sep 13, 2007, 12:00:

cassini77: People should indeed try to respect each other a bit more, even when they are 99% in disagreement.

Regarding how to get peace in this country, I would personally prefer a negotiation,. An honest, realistic one, not what we saw several years ago. But there are several roads to peace and it's difficult to predict which will take us there, much less after how many turns, so to speak.

However, I would like to know what is your opinion about the Petro/Pole/FARC controversy, if possible. Criticizing FARC's crimes is not equivalent to closing the door to peace , IMHO.

Understanding how FARC came into existence is one thing, but that does not mean that their current actions cannot be subject to both verbal criticism and physical opposition, even if we remain open to talks.

billyb says on Sep 13, 2007, 13:11:

Nicely put as always Juance.

cassini77 says on Sep 13, 2007, 13:19:

Billyb, show me where and when FARC "were bombing churches full of women and children in" Bogota.

cassini77 says on Sep 13, 2007, 13:25:

Juancegomez, I agree with you. I never said I agreed with the FARC, I only tried to say that there are other parts of the Colombian society who are violent and that all is not white or black.
We have seen in many other countries that the terrorists of today can be the allied of tomorrow ...

Simon says on Sep 13, 2007, 13:36:

"Billyb, show me where and when FARC "were bombing churches full of women and children in" Bogota."


Not in Bogota, but in Bojaya, Choco in 2002. Those MF'ers threw cylinder bombs at a church full of people seeking refuge from their terror and about 150 of them were killed, including many women and children!!

HERE'S SIMON!!!!

cassini77 says on Sep 13, 2007, 13:53:

In the Religious Freedom Report from year 2002, you can read:
"On May 3, 2002, FARC forces engaged in combat with paramilitaries inaccurately fired gas cylinder bombs at the town of Bojaya, Choco department. One of the projectiles struck the town's main church, killing 119 civilians who had gathered inside for protection. There is no evidence that the church was targeted intentionally or that the assault was religiously motivated."
Simon and others, do not say that this report is made by leftists frog-eaters intellectuals in favor of the FARC !
It is written by US Department of State ...
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2002/14037.htm

billyb says on Sep 13, 2007, 14:36:

So you think they are not to blame then, right? It also doesn't say that they were targeting anything else. What's your theory Cass? They were lobbing them into the Atrato river to maybe catch some fish for dinner? Don't you feel even a little ridiculous making excuses for them?

podborski says on Sep 13, 2007, 15:25:

sounds very pow wow ish kalder. I propose we put cassini to the 2 second pow wow acid test.

Please answer these 2 questions cassini:

1) what's your take on global warming?

2) how do you feel about multinational pharmaceutical companies?

Sr Tertius says on Sep 13, 2007, 19:39:

Juance,

I don't understand this moral obligation of PDA, not only to criticize FARC but to do it in terms that the Uribistas want them to. Meanwhile the Uribistas claim their higher moral stand by verbally repudiating the paracos, but effectively continuing to collude with them for electoral purposes. Gina Parody criticized the PDA for rejecting political violence in what she deemed lukewarm terms; she did not pause to consider that the association of her party, la U, with the paracos is pretty hot. It seems that what matters for Uribistas is what you say, not so much what you do.

I generally have a lot of respect for Petro, but I think it was a mistake to act without consulting with PDA. He is acting as a member of that party. Now he is, along Lucho Garzon, implicitly questioning the leadership of Carlos Gaviria. Not good.

With Maria Emma burned, Moreno running for Bogota, and Navarro running for Narino, there are only three potential presidential candidate in PDA: Petro, Lucho, and Gaviria. That the three are involved in this debacle is no coincidence. Gaviria's derision of nasty piecemeal opinion politics makes me more confident that we need him as a candidate again in 2010.

You gotta give it to the FARC bastards: They know how to push the buttons of the democratic left, and how to play the Uribistas reactionaries like a fiddle. Those guys are no idiots.

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

Simon says on Sep 13, 2007, 19:56:

Sr. Tertius,


I suggest you give it up on the PDA people, they're no good for the country. For president, I want Sergio Fajardo or Fernando Araujo. Now those are honest, decent, patriotic Colombians!

HERE'S SIMON!!!!

Sr Tertius says on Sep 13, 2007, 21:28:

Simon,

I'd like to hear the reasons why you think the only party in Colombia that is cohesive and not riddled with links to paracos is "no good for the country." But please provide at least one verifiable fact for each opinion.

I wouldn't mind a Sergio Fajardo for president, but I don't trust individuals in power: If he had an organized political movement, with a clear agenda, I'd be willing to listen to him. Same thing for Antanas Mockus. I'm losing confidence in people like Penalosa, who as individuals make fantastic candidates, but are too quick to negotiate their independence for political support. I don't trust that.

Regarding Araujo, there are a bunch of problems. First, his problems with the Chambacu affair are still not resolved, so I'd pause for a second before saying categorically that he is a decent person. Second, he has no credentials for the presidency. Third, he is part of the Uribe administration, and doesn't seem to be unhappy about it--that's a problem for me.

Maybe both of them are honest, decent, and patriotic, but so am I and many people I know , and none of us would qualify even for a meager vice-ministry. It takes more than that to make a good candidate, and neither one has what is needed; Araujo is unlikely to ever be in my good list, but Fajardo may be there eventually. In the meanwhile, I favor a man who is honest, decent, patriotic, intelligent, capable, with a clean record, open minded, an effective politician (in the best sense of the word) and who exudes the spirit of democracy. That man is Carlos Gaviria Diaz.

BTW, I'm not saying that PDA is an impecable party. That just doesn't exist in politics. But from all the evils in Colombian politics, PDA is by far the lesser one.

Let me reiterate: One verifiable fact for each opinion. In particular if you are going to allege effective links between FARC and PDA (a typical unfounded criticism).

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

john_stark says on Sep 13, 2007, 21:31:

I think Tio Sal should be president. He'd clean it up once and for all.

kalder says on Sep 14, 2007, 00:56:

Pod- I said in some other post that I rarely laugh when I read something. Well I did chuckle merrily when I read your 'pow wow test'...

"kalder- have you ever had a woman?"--Sam Salmon

cassini77 says on Sep 14, 2007, 05:24:

Thank you, Sr Tertious, for your comments.
You are very patient with these uribist guys.

juancegomez says on Sep 14, 2007, 08:27:

Just in case...for the record, I don't believe I am an "uribist" cassini77...

SrTertius:

"I don't understand this moral obligation of PDA, not only to criticize FARC but to do it in terms that the Uribistas want them to."

Whether we like it or not, SrTertius, a lot of people tend to have quite simplistic or even reactionary views about left wing parties and their links to the guerrillas, past and present. There's plenty of historical and anecdotal evidence about this problem.

Thus I think it's not only a moral obligation, which it indeed is up to a certain point, but also a matter or pragmatism. You know a lot of people, including but not limited to Uribistas, are going to establish links between the PDA and the FARC. It's an unavoidable issue that has to be addressed as much as possible, even if some of us already know that most of the left, the majority by far, has no such links or sympathies at this time.

"Meanwhile the Uribistas claim their higher moral stand by verbally repudiating the paracos, but effectively continuing to collude with them for electoral purposes."

Actually, there's not that much verbal repudiation either, when you think about it, with exceptions like those of Parody and a couple of others. Nor, as you've pointed out, real practical repudiation. Still, there is the whole "parapolitics" scandal rolling, slowly but surely, and that's going to bite a certain number of them sooner or later.

"Gina Parody criticized the PDA for rejecting political violence in what she deemed lukewarm terms; she did not pause to consider that the association of her party, la U, with the paracos is pretty hot. It seems that what matters for Uribistas is what you say, not so much what you do."

That may be the case, but for me and probably for many others as well, both are important. What you do is often not clear enough if you don't publicize it, so to speak.

"I generally have a lot of respect for Petro, but I think it was a mistake to act without consulting with PDA. He is acting as a member of that party. Now he is, along Lucho Garzon, implicitly questioning the leadership of Carlos Gaviria. Not good."

That may have been a mistake, the specific methods Petro chose, but I don't believe his general reasoning can be questioned too much.

Still, it remains to be seen whether he will be able to act properly, by actually debating this inside the party itself and helping to find a solution to the crisis. Which includes respecting the party leadership, yes, but not changing his personal right to self-expression. There has to be a balance, so to speak, and I believe his remarks, while not made in the most appropriate terms, are still valid.

Finally, nothing Petro has said makes him an "Uribista", an extremely ridiculous accusation if there ever was one, but I'm seeing some people resorting to that...unfortunately and ironically even.

"With Maria Emma burned, Moreno running for Bogota, and Navarro running for Narino, there are only three potential presidential candidate in PDA: Petro, Lucho, and Gaviria. That the three are involved in this debacle is no coincidence. Gaviria's derision of nasty piecemeal opinion politics makes me more confident that we need him as a candidate again in 2010."

That would appear to be the case, at first sight...but then again, Gaviria has said that he is not interested in running, though only time will tell...there's still plenty of opportunities left.

"You gotta give it to the FARC bastards: They know how to push the buttons of the democratic left, and how to play the Uribistas reactionaries like a fiddle. Those guys are no idiots."

Of course they aren't...which is why, however, the issue cannot be avoided and left up to manipulation by FARC, by Uribe or the judgment of individual personalities.

Simon says on Sep 14, 2007, 10:55:

"I'd like to hear the reasons why you think the only party in Colombia that is cohesive and not riddled with links to paracos is "no good for the country.""

Sr. Tertius,

They may not be riddled with links to the paracos, but now we see that they may very well have ideological links to the guerrillas. Didn't Polo congressman Wilson Borja say the other day that "the FARC is not our enemy"? How he can consider a terrorist group that has been terrorizing Colombians for decades to not be his enemy is outrageous! And didn't the FARC state last week that they would like to see the Polo Comunista, whoops, I mean the Polo Democratico come to power? Any political party that receives that FARC's endorsement can't be good for the country. That was their kiss of death!

HERE'S SIMON!!!!

podborski says on Sep 14, 2007, 16:19:

kalder, sometimes when I read the crap spewing out of the mouths of people who are not only apologists for murderers but afraid to admit it, I start to lose faith in humanity,

but then I see how many people appreciate pow wow and that faith is restored : )

cassini77 says on Sep 14, 2007, 23:47:

There are many US people I admire: those who are not admirers of the dollar God; those which raise questions about their good right; those which expressed for the civic rights of the Blacks: those who walk against the Iraq invasion; those who respect the wifes rights and do not take them as sexual objects just good as avatars; those who do not come to colombia only to find a a wife or just to make love with colombianans; those who fighted for the peace in Vietnam; those who give an high idea of the American culture like Styron, Mailer, Auster, Irving and so many others; those who think that the american way of life is perhaps not superiot to others ways of life; those who want to leave a peaceful earth to their children; those who are not xenophobes or racists.
Yes there are a lot of Us people I love !

cassini77 says on Sep 15, 2007, 02:54:

Yes USA is the country of the freedom. So the Neo Nazis can express themselves in the street and are protected by the police.
Dogman, you are insincere like all Bushists. You do not even listen to or read that the others have to say. You are an intolerant fanatic, like ben Laden (remember, he has been created by the USA). I repeat I love all Americans who are not like you.
You deserve the picture of your country. With guys like you, poor America.
And you know nothing. I was in the street in France to protest against French nuclear tests.
And I observed the three minutes of silence asked by french government on 9/12/2001 in solidarity with New-York, the victims of 1109 and the people of USA.

Desideria (Moderator) says on Sep 15, 2007, 03:56:

Guys keep it civil.

Cheers,
Desideria

"I have opinions of my own, strong opinions, but I don't always agree with them."-President George W. Bush

cassini77 says on Sep 15, 2007, 09:51:

I never saw people here spitting on tourists; if you have seen that one time, it could have happened in all countries. There are stupid people everywhere (but the concentration in this post is very high).
But I can understand that, if you have insulted french people in France the same way you do it on this forum, they wanted to spit on you. We are not masochists. I even suppose they wanted to cover you with tons of excrements. Like this your ideas would stink less.

cassini77 says on Sep 15, 2007, 15:22:

All is said.
These are my last words (in this post) because i do not want to be more agressive

Desideria (Moderator) says on Sep 16, 2007, 10:37:

I had already asked you guys to keep it civil. I only deleted the worst insults and they were found in two of your posts and I also deleted one cassini's post. I'm doing this by the book now; whatever I may or may not think about this issue does not affect my deleting ad hominem attacks and overly vulgar language.

Cheers,
Desideria

"I have opinions of my own, strong opinions, but I don't always agree with them."-President George W. Bush

Desideria (Moderator) says on Sep 16, 2007, 10:46:

Double post

"I have opinions of my own, strong opinions, but I don't always agree with them."-President George W. Bush

Sr Tertius says on Sep 16, 2007, 20:59:

Simon,

What kind of "ideological links" could there be between an organization that supports violence as the main form of political action and one that categorically rejects it? That seems to me like a substantial ideological difference. The statements of Wilson Borja and Jaime Dussan were overblown--note the absence of context. But here's the main thing: Those are words. Last time I checked, words kill fewer people than providing effective support to an illegal armed group, like some members of "la U" have. And you know what that U stands for, right? So, are you saying that not strongly condemning an armed group is morally comparable to providing them with effective aid? That saying "maybe that guy who robbed the bank ain't that bad" is comparable to giving him the gun?

"Any political party that receives that FARC's endorsement can't be good for the country."

By the same token, is any politician who received paraco endorsement good for the country? Because Uribe did. And here's another thing: Neither Polo nor Uribe have control over what other people say. It seems plain ridiculous that they should be judged on actions they have no control of. But, of course, that's the game that FARC wants the Uribistas to play and, as you have demonstrated, many have fallen for it.

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

Dolfi says on Sep 17, 2007, 01:05:

Nobody who reads this thread should wonder any longer why americans are disliked in most parts of the world.

kalder says on Sep 17, 2007, 07:09:

Funny how the denizens of most parts of the world want to live there though...

"kalder- have you ever had a woman?"--Sam Salmon

podborski says on Sep 17, 2007, 07:24:

surprising how many people in the world are full of hatred for and envy of the successful

juancegomez says on Sep 20, 2007, 10:49:

El Polo: Unido y fortalecido


- Después de nueve horas de discusión y análisis sobre la posición del Polo frente a las FARC, el Comité Ejecutivo del partido y la bancada parlamentaria expidieron, por unanimidad, en la madrugada de este jueves, una declaración pública en la que se ratificaron la unidad del partido, la condena a todo acto violento o terrorista, y se abogó, una vez más, por el acuerdo humanitario y la salida política al conflicto.

- El Ejecutivo manifestó que Carlos Gaviria “es garantía de esta unidad y símbolo ante el país�?, a la vez que rechazó las declaraciones de las FARC contra algunos miembros del Polo.

- La máxima instancia de decisión del Polo ratificó, también, su rechazo y condena a la muerte de los diputados del Valle y señaló a las FARC como los responsables de ese “trágico final�?.

Polo Democrático Alternativo
Jueves 20 de septiembre de 2007

DECLARACIÓN DEL COMITÉ EJECUTIVO NACIONAL DEL PDA

El Comité Ejecutivo Nacional del POLO, reunido en Bogotá el día 19 de septiembre expide, por unanimidad, la siguiente declaración:

1. El POLO es un partido pluralista, democrático y civilista en el cual conviven diversas tendencias unificadas en el acatamiento al Ideario de Unidad, los estatutos y los demás documentos programáticos que enmarcan su acción en el Estado Social de Derecho, y que rechazan el uso de las armas para acceder al poder o como instrumento de acción política para buscar beneficios en alianza con el narcotráfico, la guerrilla y el paramilitarismo.

Reafirmamos la unidad del POLO como un partido con opción de poder. Existen bases sólidas ideológicas, políticas y organizativas que garantizan su unidad. El presidente Doctor Carlos Gaviria es garantía de esta unidad y símbolo ante el país, de nuestro compromiso con la institucionalidad democrática.

2. Respecto de la utilización de formas violentas de acción con propósitos electorales lo único que no puede ocultarse ante el país y el mundo es el hecho judicialmente probado de que la elección del Presidente Uribe, y sus amigos en el Congreso, estuvo acompañado de apoyos del paramilitarismo.

3. De igual manera, es parte del ideario político del POLO el rechazo de los métodos utilizados por distintos protagonistas de la confrontación en el conflicto armado interno tipificados como infracciones a las normas del Derecho Internacional Humanitario, crímenes de guerra o de lesa humanidad. El POLO condena todas estas prácticas atroces, así como la toma de rehenes, reclutamiento de menores, actos de violencia sexual, ejecuciones extrajudiciales, desapariciones forzadas, retenciones arbitrarias, torturas, uso de armas y explosivos de acción indiscriminada, ataques a bienes e infraestructura, servicios públicos, a la población civil y todo acto de terrorismo.

4. Nos oponemos una vez más a la violencia, al terrorismo y a la guerra. Reafirmamos nuestro apoyo a la solución política del conflicto armado. Condenamos el homicidio de los once diputados del departamento del Valle. Señalamos la responsabilidad de sus captores, las FARC, en su trágico final. Rechazamos la práctica del secuestro, exigimos la libertad de todos los cautivos y presos políticos, y respaldamos las iniciativas de la comunidad internacional y de Jefes de Estado por el intercambio humanitario y el cese de la violencia y de la guerra.

5. No aceptamos y condenamos las declaraciones hechas por miembros de las FARC en contra de Gustavo Petro, María Emma Mejía, Luis Eduardo Garzón y Antonio Navarro y otros dirigentes del POLO, así como los señalamientos del jefe del Estado y otros funcionarios contra los integrantes y líderes de nuestro partido como “guerrilleros de civil�?; y las amenazas a candidatos y candidatas de nuestro partido y de otros partidos, por parte de cualquiera de los actores armados ilegales y cuerpos de seguridad del Estado, a quienes les exigimos el respeto y la no interferencia en el proceso electoral que se avecina.

De la misma manera, rechazamos el montaje y las acusaciones falsas y temerarias contra el Senador del POLO Alexander López, hechas por un integrante activo de grupos paramilitares, preso en la cárcel de Palmira.

6. El POLO ratifica la condena a las políticas antidemocráticas, guerreristas y antipopulares del presidente Alvaro Uribe, porque ellas son contrarias a los intereses económicos sociales y políticos de los colombianos y al programa del POLO.

7. El Comité Ejecutivo Nacional llama a toda su militancia a redoblar esfuerzos en la campaña electoral en curso, ganar la adhesión de la ciudadanía a nuestros candidatos propios o de alianzas con base en acuerdos programáticos, así como el apoyo decidido a la candidatura del Doctor Samuel Moreno Rojas, próximo Alcalde de Bogotá.

Suscrito por el Comité Ejecutivo Nacional y la bancada parlamentaria.

La sesión que estuvo presidida por el Presidente del partido, Carlos Gaviria, y el Secretario General, Daniel García-Peña, se desarrolló en un hotel del centro de la ciudad y a ella asistieron todos los miembros del CEN y los integrantes de la bancada con asiento en el Congreso de la República.

http://www.polodemocratico.net/El-Polo-Unido-y-fortalecido

Sr Tertius says on Sep 21, 2007, 16:24:

Así se comporta un partido serio. Los puntos 3, 4 y 5 dejan las cosas claras. No me sorprendería, sin embargo, que salieran algunos a torcerle la semántica con tal de que suene a lo que ellos prefieran.

El contraste con los de "la U" es dramático. El partido de Uribe tendrá los votos, pero nada más. Se parece al viejo partido liberal, pero al menos están trabajando por conseguir alguna unidad.

Debo admitir que por primera vez esto tiene cara de democracia. Los partidos compitiendo por unidad y buscando coherencia. Falta ahora que efectivamente tramiten lo que demanda sus representados.

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

juancegomez says on Sep 21, 2007, 17:15:

Para encontrar ese tipo de gente no hay que ir muy lejos, ahí están los foros EL TIEMPO, una verdadera jungla...

El uribismo prácticamente es el grueso del tradicional Partido Liberal, solamente que con otro logo. Hoy están con Uribe en "La U", mañana estarán con Pepito Perez en "La P".

En términos de la maquinaria política y las prácticas que trae consigo, sigue siendo casi lo mismo. Eso no significa que no puedan alcanzar algún tipo de unidad hacia el futuro, pero esencialmente siguen siendo coaliciones electorales antes que ideológicas.

Sr Tertius says on Sep 22, 2007, 17:51:

Uy, los foros de El Tiempo y Semana. No sé ni que pensar de lo que escribe la gente ahí. La gente que vive obsesionada con la imagen de Colombia ante el mundo debería preocuparse por lo que se escribe ahí: aparecemos como unos intolerantes, racistas, sexistas, anti-intelectuales, violentos, que sólo sabemos repetir slogans y frasecitas de cajón con una gramática que ni de primaria, y de una educación lamentable.

Lo de Uribe y "la U" es una triste continuación de la vieja politiquería, pero con nuevo traje.

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