This the real A.U.C. Supported by Uribes and his Party

utopiacowboy says on Feb 3, 2007, 17:08:

There was more to it. Freddy Espitia got bumped off as well. I've never been to the tourist areas of any Colombian city. I'm not sure Monteria would even have what anyone would consider a tourist area.

Disclaimer: any comment I make is inane and is not to be taken seriously, and is so patently ridiculous that no one should take it seriously, even as an insult.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

utopiacowboy says on Feb 4, 2007, 09:22:

My mother-in-law and several of my wife's brothers live in Monteria. She also has a finca on the road to Puerto Escondido near a tiny village called Santa Lucia. I am acquainted with a member of the Espitia family who now lives in Medellin.

Disclaimer: any comment I make is inane and is not to be taken seriously, and is so patently ridiculous that no one should take it seriously, even as an insult.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Miguel says on Feb 4, 2007, 09:49:

Question Exactly where did the AP report transition into the OP's opinion?

AUC in Barranquilla is what it is...business as usual.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on Feb 4, 2007, 11:05:

Miguel, nowhere, if we're thinking about the same thing... Then again, that's almost a tradition here.

A less passionate and opinionated discussion about this matter could be interesting, but this isn't it.

As for the rest...colombiamike:

"The A.U.C.(the ricos dogs)have never disarmed fully and never will,"

Although it's an extreme simplification to call them "the ricos dogs" (in some cases it's actually the opposite, and in others it's neither), you do have a point in that there hasn't been a full, de facto disarming of the AUC (even if the label itself is meaningless at this point in time), nor of other paramilitary groups that never intended to do so, for that matter.

"just as Uribe and his like will never return the lands they but so cheap(but with lots of working peoples blood)"

Leaving aside the issue of individual demonizations that might or might not be accurately supported by actual research, that's only one part of the problem. A lot of lands were also sold cheaply not necessarily only due to paramilitary pressure but also due to guerrilla activity or even standard criminal activities.

"as colombia will always be Colombia."

Well...very few things in this world will "always be", except perhaps death and taxes (to paraphrase a famous phrase).

Sooner or later Colombia will change, both for the better and, logically, also for the worse. Countries aren't monolithic, you know.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Tinto (Moderator) (Trustee board) says on Feb 4, 2007, 11:33:

Interesting to see the story in El Tiempo yesterday where ex-President Gaviria says Uribe is partly responsible for the creation of the paras. No love lost between those two, apparently.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on Feb 4, 2007, 12:08:

Tinto Uribe was never on Gaviria's political sphere of influence within the Liberal Party anyways, as far as I can recall / is public knowledge. So they've never been that close in the first place, indeed (even if they may have shared some common government policies, in particular as far as neoliberal economics are concerned).

Then again, Gaviria showed some signs of slight historical amnesia during that interview.

There were already paramilitaries during his own administration (1990-1994) and long before (the 80's MAS and the 90's "Los Pepes", anyone?). Not to mention that it was Gaviria's own government that emitted the Decree that (in conjunction with other legal measures taken by the National Government under both his and Samper's administration) gave origin to the CONVIVIR groups nationwide (not all of them paramilitary, but definitely exploited by them).

You don't really need to do that much research in order to look that up:

http://www.cidh.org/countryrep/Colom99sp/capitulo-4e.htm

Whatever Uribe did (and he's done many things, highly questionable even, such as dismissing early critics and turning a blind eye to the local supervision of those CONVIVIR groups that existed in Antioquia under his governorship), to say that he's responsible for the "creation of paramilitarism" has no real historical basis. He didn't even "create" the CONVIVIR groups (he promoted and defended them, which is not a real "creation" in any realistic sense of the word), and paramilitarism already existed by then.

It may have "symbolic" basis for some, but that's far too subjective.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

aztec says on Feb 5, 2007, 08:22:

If my posts in the political section... ...are to be deleted please have the courtesy to let me know.

Thanks.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

cali373 says on Feb 5, 2007, 09:32:

While Uribe is is not sole to blame for the creation of the contemporary paramilitary movement in Colombia, it is the likes of Uribe that did create them and now they are free reigning monsters that cannot be tamed even by the aristocracy that created them. Most of the economy in Colombia (as most of Latin America)is still controlled by old money, land-owning elite. And they are much to blame for the misery and corruption in Colombia. Since they have the power they do not benefit from a middle class that get larger and more powerful. As what they think about the impoverished? Well you have the AUC. Uribe comes from the old land owning elite despite emerging from the liberal party. These elites are and always have been the source of creation for paramilitary oppression in Colombia. Convivir was deliberately set up to avoid the appearance of the outlawed paramilitary groups. Convivir was a way of involving people in the struggle against the subversive organizations
without organizing them as militias. As governor of Antioquia,Uribe Vélez oversaw the organization of CONVIVIR which had been estimated to have turned into an illegal force and displaced hundreds of thousands of peasants before they were declared illegal and disbanded in 1997.

Smile if you are a thinker!

0 funny, 0 helpful.

cali373 says on Feb 5, 2007, 09:33:

Can we see this viva FARC thread?

Smile if you are a thinker!

0 funny, 0 helpful.

aztec says on Feb 5, 2007, 10:17:

Tinto, thanks for the information There are some people who are just crazy.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Miguel says on Feb 5, 2007, 10:40:

Glad to see that thread zapped! Someone very close to me lost her father and cousin within a few days to the FARC. It is not a unique story; both were kidnapped for ransom, ransom was not paid, and both were killed.

Fuck 'em and their supporters.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

nick b. says on Feb 5, 2007, 11:01:

cali373 lot of what you say is true.It is difficult to change a terrible past(a civil war is). But I think that Uribe deserve some credit.You have to start somewhere..

0 funny, 0 helpful.

kalder says on Feb 5, 2007, 11:07:

Initially I felt that the 'pro-FARC' thread should not have been deleted; after all, the 'anti' voices were loud, articulate and many.

However, Tinto's point about one poster threatening to kill another is extremely valid and I'm damn glad he picked up on it.

Recently in Britain, a guy was sentenced to life for murder. His victim was somebody he got into an argument with in an online chat room. The victim had, unfortunately (and tragically,) given too much away about his personal life. His killer found out where he lived, paid him a visit and stabbed him to death.

I'm not saying the thread would have lead to anyone being killed; but threatening it is just plain wrong!

Well done on your vigilance Tinto.

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

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on Feb 5, 2007, 13:43:

colombiamike You know, I've never claimed to know "all" of "the facts", so that's beside the point. But then again...

"So please dont talk about what you dont know Mr. Gomez"

...you cannot pretend that I or anyone else will automatically agree with you about everything if that's all you can say about the matter.

Especially given three conditions:

a)the mostly anonymous nature of the Internet itself and all that it implies.

b)the lack of specific information that may be "obvious" for you, but remains totally unknown for others until you even mention it.

c)the right for everybody to participate in a reasonable and respectful debate, regardless of what they "know" or "don't know".

I don't think that's unreasonable, is it?

"Send me your e-mail and I will send you copias of my papers where I sold for less then 10% of fair market value to a company owned by Pres.Uribe's nephew."

As it is, you can send me an e-mail through the forum already. If you wish to do so.

If what you say is actually true (I have no reason to affirm or deny it, so I cannot swear on it either way), then that's all well and good, but if we're good to talk about it in an open forum, merely stating that something is the case doesn't end the discussion.

"I have niebors who had to sell even cheaper then I did and I burried some good friends,but hope the F.A.R.C one day over whelm and succide then Colombia can be Colombia."

I am sorry for what your neighbors apparently suffered, but I cannot share your hopes.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on Feb 5, 2007, 14:30:

cali373, I agree with you about the existence of national and local elites, both "old" and new", that continue to be mostly in control throughout Colombia and the rest of Latin America, resulting in a situation where reactionary trends have traditionally slowed or stopped most progressive attempts at reform and contributed to maintaining the status quo, all while neglecting or increasing poverty and inequality. While that may not be the entire picture (it is not, indeed), that's definitely one ugly truth that I clearly recognize.

Uribe definitely shares the same kind of social, historical and mental background that many paramilitary leaders and sponsors share, that of large rural landowners. I don't like that and I don't like the guy at all, for the most part. I find his personality, his politics and his administration moderately negative to extremely counterproductive in several notable respects (social policy and economics, for example, as well as lack of tolerance/diplomacy/respect for critics and for certain aspects of human rights), but I believe that each situation deserves to be analyzed in a calm manner.

Regarding the CONVIVIR groups, I just posted a link to a report from the Interamerican Comission of Human Rights, an international body. The report explains, among other things, the situation of the CONVIVIRs at length. Here is the link once again:

http://www.cidh.org/countryrep/Colom99sp/capitulo-4e.htm

That they were an attempt to organize people against subversion is clear, nationwide and not merely in Antioquia, but that in itself is not what went wrong with them. Mainly, that was a serious lack of true oversight, which resulted in extreme tolerance for human rights abuses and their exploitation by already existing paramilitaries. That the CONVIVIR groups did contribute to paramilitarism is clear, but they hardly were their beginnings. Carlos Castaño's ACCU was not a CONVIVIR, for example.

There came to be, according to the estimates in that report, about 414 CONVIVIR groups nationwide, numbering some 120,000 members. Not all those people were paramilitary or paramilitary supporters. The groups were not outlawed nor declared illegal per se, but actually received certain restrictions that made their continued operation considerably difficult, until they then disbanded themselves, for the most part. Evidently, many of their members were allegedly or confirmed to be part of paramilitary organizations in disguise, and thus their disbanding made little to no difference for them.

Btw, I'm referring to paragraphs 319, 320 and 339 of that report, among others.

0 funny, 0 helpful.