|
the thing with the blame goes like this: if you have no money, you can't buy the guns to wage your war, so those making/giving payments to <groups> are always the worst of them all.
|
|
|
On August 30 2019 22:19 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2019 14:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 30 2019 13:05 JimmiC wrote:
Yes the CIA has done a lot of shitty things, and was working with the drug lords, certain ones. As long as they were against commies because of tge fear of the USSR getting a greater foothold in SA. While the DEA was trying to stop the drugs.
Not only is there countless based on a true storey tv shows and movies, making it pretty common knowledge, but also in the Wikipedia article I linked. The stuff you always think is so biased is actually pretty balanced. If you actually think the DEA was trying to stop drugs I'm not sure you've watched the right shows/movies? The drug war was/is a political repression tool in the US and South America. From the wiki you posted: In March 2015, it was revealed DEA agents were participating in drug cartel-funded sex parties with prostitutes.[198] Agents were provided with expensive gifts, weapons and money from drug cartel members.[199] The head of the US Drug Enforcement Administration, Michele Leonhart announced her retirement. Leonhart's tenure as DEA Administrator was marked with controversy and scandals including a prostitution scandal. I don't see what your comment has to do with the point I'm making about the superficial delineation you made between right wing paramilitary groups, the Colombian government/military, and the US government/CIA when it comes to the violence in Colombia? Or where the bias thing is coming from? I simply and briefly explained why I don't think it makes much sense superficially distinguish body counts between the paramilitary group that carried out the Mapiripán Massacre and the military (from which the groups members largely originate)/government that collaborated in it, for example. You simply took time to blame the US fir things we all already knew they did and apologize for FARC. This is your MO if any one talks bad about anyone who has communism in there name you can guarantee you retort with a "but the US is\was worse" post. The DEA was certainly trying, at least its agents. They also got told who they could and couldnt go after from the CIA and had to work with local governments, which were often related or the drug pushers themselves. One such show that has this plot is Narcos, but there is a bunch. Look others have commented on the us feedback thread how you derail so many convos with your "nut the US is the worst, or did the worst schtick. This is not the US politics page. If we are talking about FARC let us talk about FARC. If you want to argue a source is incomplete, at least read the source.
If you're going to tell me what to post you should read my posts. I didn't argue the source was incomplete. The US/CIA was mentioned (because they are relevant), but my point was that the distinction between right wing paramilitaries and the Colombian government/military was a thin veneer of plausible deniability.
Which you still didn't address and instead are whining about me pointing out US involvement in South America (US corporations literally and documented funding right-wing paramilitary/the Colombian military terrorists known for horrific things like beheading civilians they claim are associated with FARC), which is going to be relevant no matter how much you complain about me pointing it out.
|
|
|
On August 30 2019 23:07 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2019 22:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 30 2019 22:19 JimmiC wrote:On August 30 2019 14:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 30 2019 13:05 JimmiC wrote:
Yes the CIA has done a lot of shitty things, and was working with the drug lords, certain ones. As long as they were against commies because of tge fear of the USSR getting a greater foothold in SA. While the DEA was trying to stop the drugs.
Not only is there countless based on a true storey tv shows and movies, making it pretty common knowledge, but also in the Wikipedia article I linked. The stuff you always think is so biased is actually pretty balanced. If you actually think the DEA was trying to stop drugs I'm not sure you've watched the right shows/movies? The drug war was/is a political repression tool in the US and South America. From the wiki you posted: In March 2015, it was revealed DEA agents were participating in drug cartel-funded sex parties with prostitutes.[198] Agents were provided with expensive gifts, weapons and money from drug cartel members.[199] The head of the US Drug Enforcement Administration, Michele Leonhart announced her retirement. Leonhart's tenure as DEA Administrator was marked with controversy and scandals including a prostitution scandal. I don't see what your comment has to do with the point I'm making about the superficial delineation you made between right wing paramilitary groups, the Colombian government/military, and the US government/CIA when it comes to the violence in Colombia? Or where the bias thing is coming from? I simply and briefly explained why I don't think it makes much sense superficially distinguish body counts between the paramilitary group that carried out the Mapiripán Massacre and the military (from which the groups members largely originate)/government that collaborated in it, for example. You simply took time to blame the US fir things we all already knew they did and apologize for FARC. This is your MO if any one talks bad about anyone who has communism in there name you can guarantee you retort with a "but the US is\was worse" post. The DEA was certainly trying, at least its agents. They also got told who they could and couldnt go after from the CIA and had to work with local governments, which were often related or the drug pushers themselves. One such show that has this plot is Narcos, but there is a bunch. Look others have commented on the us feedback thread how you derail so many convos with your "nut the US is the worst, or did the worst schtick. This is not the US politics page. If we are talking about FARC let us talk about FARC. If you want to argue a source is incomplete, at least read the source. If you're going to tell me what to post you should read my posts. I didn't argue the source was incomplete. The US/CIA was mentioned (because they are relevant), but my point was that the distinction between right wing paramilitaries and the Colombian government/military was a thin veneer of plausible deniability. Which you still didn't address and instead are whining about me pointing out US involvement in South America, which is going to be relevant no matter how much you complain about me pointing it out. Is it also then relevant to talk about what the USSR was doing? And what life was like there? Question for you. How do you think it was for people living in Russia when it was the USSR? How about Poland? The Ukraine? And then to follow it up, do you think it was better if the west freed your country or is the USSR did in WW2, for the people living there?
So instead of talking about Colombia and the relationship between the right-wing paramilitaries and the government/military of Colombia you want avoid that and use this thread and FARC discussion as a segue to discuss life in Russia, Poland, and the Ukraine and WW II?
I mean I'm not opposed, if you can explain the relevance to whatever argument you are trying to make and then want to get into the nuance therein?
|
|
|
On August 30 2019 23:20 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2019 23:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 30 2019 23:07 JimmiC wrote:On August 30 2019 22:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 30 2019 22:19 JimmiC wrote:On August 30 2019 14:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 30 2019 13:05 JimmiC wrote:
Yes the CIA has done a lot of shitty things, and was working with the drug lords, certain ones. As long as they were against commies because of tge fear of the USSR getting a greater foothold in SA. While the DEA was trying to stop the drugs.
Not only is there countless based on a true storey tv shows and movies, making it pretty common knowledge, but also in the Wikipedia article I linked. The stuff you always think is so biased is actually pretty balanced. If you actually think the DEA was trying to stop drugs I'm not sure you've watched the right shows/movies? The drug war was/is a political repression tool in the US and South America. From the wiki you posted: In March 2015, it was revealed DEA agents were participating in drug cartel-funded sex parties with prostitutes.[198] Agents were provided with expensive gifts, weapons and money from drug cartel members.[199] The head of the US Drug Enforcement Administration, Michele Leonhart announced her retirement. Leonhart's tenure as DEA Administrator was marked with controversy and scandals including a prostitution scandal. I don't see what your comment has to do with the point I'm making about the superficial delineation you made between right wing paramilitary groups, the Colombian government/military, and the US government/CIA when it comes to the violence in Colombia? Or where the bias thing is coming from? I simply and briefly explained why I don't think it makes much sense superficially distinguish body counts between the paramilitary group that carried out the Mapiripán Massacre and the military (from which the groups members largely originate)/government that collaborated in it, for example. You simply took time to blame the US fir things we all already knew they did and apologize for FARC. This is your MO if any one talks bad about anyone who has communism in there name you can guarantee you retort with a "but the US is\was worse" post. The DEA was certainly trying, at least its agents. They also got told who they could and couldnt go after from the CIA and had to work with local governments, which were often related or the drug pushers themselves. One such show that has this plot is Narcos, but there is a bunch. Look others have commented on the us feedback thread how you derail so many convos with your "nut the US is the worst, or did the worst schtick. This is not the US politics page. If we are talking about FARC let us talk about FARC. If you want to argue a source is incomplete, at least read the source. If you're going to tell me what to post you should read my posts. I didn't argue the source was incomplete. The US/CIA was mentioned (because they are relevant), but my point was that the distinction between right wing paramilitaries and the Colombian government/military was a thin veneer of plausible deniability. Which you still didn't address and instead are whining about me pointing out US involvement in South America, which is going to be relevant no matter how much you complain about me pointing it out. Is it also then relevant to talk about what the USSR was doing? And what life was like there? Question for you. How do you think it was for people living in Russia when it was the USSR? How about Poland? The Ukraine? And then to follow it up, do you think it was better if the west freed your country or is the USSR did in WW2, for the people living there? So instead of talking about Colombia and the relationship between the right-wing paramilitaries and the government/military of Colombia you want avoid that and use this thread and FARC discussion as a segue to discuss life in Russia, Poland, and the Ukraine and WW II? I mean I'm not opposed, if you can explain the relevance to whatever argument you are trying to make and then want to get into the nuance therein? I am not interested in talking about the relationship between the right-wing paramilitaries and the government because that has been done to death, and despite your feelings to the opposite we really don't disagree. I just don't think it is very relevant to what the current FARC is or is doing. There is a reason that the FARC's legitimate political wing won so few seats, they lost there way and became a drug organization no different then those they marginally formed to hunt, which is not uncommon.
I don't think you have much familiarity with the situation or it's history + Show Spoiler +I don't know enough to know about the party running Columbia to know if GH knows something about them or it is another assumption stated like fact.
and instead are saying it's well known and we don't disagree when that's why I pointed it out the frail distinction between paramilitary forces and military forces/Colombian government when you tried to use it to say
So that is the drug dealers with the most by far and the FARC with 50% more than the government.
Which means it wasn't known by you and we don't agree (unless you've retracted/corrected that without me noticing?)
|
|
|
On August 30 2019 23:43 JimmiC wrote:
I didn't try to say it, it was the way the UN broke it out on their stats. If you have a bone to pick with how they did that feel free to take it up with them. The FARC also had assistance from people in the government and foreign governments, so if you really wanted to you could say 100% of the civilian killings were done by oppressors. But that wouldnt have done much to clear up you and Gotunks talking about who killed more and who was worse.
You going to answer my questions like I always do for yours, or same old I keep answering you keep dodging?
They gave attributions but it was you who said specifically the quote I pulled. So that's you not only accepting their counts and attributions but either arguing their validity or using them without any idea as to their accuracy when used as you did to make it seem (despite the evidence) that FARC was killing more than the government.
As to the UN numbers, they are probably inaccurate besides the distinction you used to make a rhetorical point about the violence of FARC that you now won't stand behind.
According to a (more recent than the UN source) study, the Colombian army killed thousands more civilians than reported
|
I know you had no idea before you said
There is a reason that the FARC's legitimate political wing won so few seats[ they lost there way and became a drug organization no different then those they marginally formed to hunt, which is not uncommon.
that one of the reasons was the same far right paramilitaries and government you/the UN made a distinction between were likely responsible for threatening and murdering (as per GoTunk's wishes) the same human rights advocates and supporters of the peace agreement that would vote for them.
A wide range of activists have been targeted, including community leaders, Afro-Colombians, indigenous people, environmentalists, journalists and women’s rights defenders, some involved in local politics.
“Community leaders are particularly vulnerable and account for more than 70 per cent of all recorded killings”, the OHCHR spokesperson explained, adding that some were targeted because they supported aspects of the historic 2016 Colombian peace agreement, including land restitution and victims’ rights.
news.un.org
Also the threat from right-wing paramilitary/government/military is still very real.
In their latest threat, the group specifically vowed to kill seven women’s rights activists, including Petro’s ex-wife, and warned that “all leftist followers of guerrilla Gustavo Petro” are targets.
According to the Aguilas Negras, “our arms will impose the justice that others have failed to carry out."
and it's not just "extreme leftists" under threat:
But the Aguilas Negras threatened the “death to all collaborators” of the campaign of the leftist opposition leader who received 8 million votes in the presidential election.
So far, the administration of President Ivan Duque has done nothing against the group that has expressed its support for the president and his political patron, former President Alvaro Uribe.
Electoral observers and political analysts on multiple occasions have wanted about a possible escalation of deadly political violence, particularly targeting aspiring politicians challenging the country’s traditional political dynasties, ahead of October’s elections.
colombiareports.com
On August 31 2019 00:49 JimmiC wrote:
So same as usual. Oh well.
lol I don't even know what you were/are trying to argue or add at this point? I don't think you do either? Can anyone tell me?
|
|
|
On August 31 2019 00:49 JimmiC wrote:
So same as usual. Oh well.
Edit: Oh I guess you edited in a response to this post so I'll edit in a response to yours?
I have no idea what you arguing or what the point is. Like do you think FARC should resume the civil war? Is that what you are trying to get at?
And I'm really not interested in going down the path of me saying "yes the US did shitty things" and you saying "no you don't get it, they also did these shitty things" and me going " I know but what about...." and you going " but you don't get it they also did these shitty things. These are uninteresting conversations that go no where so I just tried to end it.
What is your end game? What point are you trying to make?
I presume this to mean you in fact don't know what you're arguing or what you're arguing against and just saying things to say them.
I've told you already and you said you didn't want to discuss it because it's been "done to death" even though you obviously had no idea.
I am not interested in talking about the relationship between the right-wing paramilitaries and the government because that has been done to death, and despite your feelings to the opposite we really don't disagree.
You say we "really don't disagree" but we obviously do. Your assertion from (dated) UN statistics that:
So that is the drug dealers with the most by far and the FARC with 50% more than the government.
should be retracted or corrected. But several posts in of you purposefully avoiding that simple point (and your admitted continued obliviousness to it) indicates you're not going to recognize why your misleading posts are so problematic.
|
|
|
On August 31 2019 06:02 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2019 04:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 31 2019 00:49 JimmiC wrote:
So same as usual. Oh well.
Edit: Oh I guess you edited in a response to this post so I'll edit in a response to yours?
I have no idea what you arguing or what the point is. Like do you think FARC should resume the civil war? Is that what you are trying to get at?
And I'm really not interested in going down the path of me saying "yes the US did shitty things" and you saying "no you don't get it, they also did these shitty things" and me going " I know but what about...." and you going " but you don't get it they also did these shitty things. These are uninteresting conversations that go no where so I just tried to end it.
What is your end game? What point are you trying to make? I presume this to mean you in fact don't know what you're arguing or what you're arguing against and just saying things to say them. I've told you already and you said you didn't want to discuss it because it's been "done to death" even though you obviously had no idea. I am not interested in talking about the relationship between the right-wing paramilitaries and the government because that has been done to death, and despite your feelings to the opposite we really don't disagree. You say we "really don't disagree" but we obviously do. Your assertion from (dated) UN statistics that: So that is the drug dealers with the most by far and the FARC with 50% more than the government. should be retracted or corrected. But several posts in of you purposefully avoiding that simple point (and your admitted continued obliviousness to it) indicates you're not going to recognize why your misleading posts are so problematic. I'm not arguing any point against you, I'm desperately trying to change the topic because it is irrelevant to the discussion at hand, which is why I asked your point. It honestly makes no difference to me who did the killings, you and Gotunks were arguing so I posted the UN numbers. What matters to me is that war might start again and innocents will die for it. Also, that FARC has 0 high ground at this point, they are not even fighting for the USSR style of communism they once were, now it is simply power and money. You want to combine the government killings and the paramilitary killings into one group, great do it. Now they killed way more over the course of the war. So do you think the FARC restarting the war is not going to again lead to all those killings by both sides? Also, do you understand that the FARC now is not the same FARC of the past? At one point they were arguably the "good guys" or at least had a robin hood feel. Not the case any more.
You don't seem to be arguing anything of substance or merit. You do seem to be desperately trying to do something but I'm not sure it's really "change the topic" exactly.
That it makes no difference to you who did the killings should be enough to dismiss your opinion as absurdly foolish on it's own but it certainly infected the rest of whatever you're trying to do.
You say what matters to you is that "war might start again and innocents will die for it" but then suggest FARC is restarting the war. Which neglects FARC and their supporters (as well as just human rights advocates) have been and keep getting killed by the right wing military/paramilitary/government you initially parroted were responsible for 50% less of the killings (though you now argue your post had no value to you/anyone other than to add information, which you had no idea as to its value, or lack thereof).
FARC isn't restarting anything and you haven't demonstrated you know much of anything about FARC and the situation in Colombia beyond what you just recently sorta read on wiki. The tertiary point was that your posts on the subject should be disregarded as uninformed and misleading, because as I've demonstrated here, they are.
In war there is very rarely a "good guy" and your framing demonstrates further why your posts on the matter should be disregarded by those looking to be better informed on the situation.
|
|
|
On August 31 2019 10:19 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2019 08:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 31 2019 06:02 JimmiC wrote:On August 31 2019 04:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 31 2019 00:49 JimmiC wrote:
So same as usual. Oh well.
Edit: Oh I guess you edited in a response to this post so I'll edit in a response to yours?
I have no idea what you arguing or what the point is. Like do you think FARC should resume the civil war? Is that what you are trying to get at?
And I'm really not interested in going down the path of me saying "yes the US did shitty things" and you saying "no you don't get it, they also did these shitty things" and me going " I know but what about...." and you going " but you don't get it they also did these shitty things. These are uninteresting conversations that go no where so I just tried to end it.
What is your end game? What point are you trying to make? I presume this to mean you in fact don't know what you're arguing or what you're arguing against and just saying things to say them. I've told you already and you said you didn't want to discuss it because it's been "done to death" even though you obviously had no idea. I am not interested in talking about the relationship between the right-wing paramilitaries and the government because that has been done to death, and despite your feelings to the opposite we really don't disagree. You say we "really don't disagree" but we obviously do. Your assertion from (dated) UN statistics that: So that is the drug dealers with the most by far and the FARC with 50% more than the government. should be retracted or corrected. But several posts in of you purposefully avoiding that simple point (and your admitted continued obliviousness to it) indicates you're not going to recognize why your misleading posts are so problematic. I'm not arguing any point against you, I'm desperately trying to change the topic because it is irrelevant to the discussion at hand, which is why I asked your point. It honestly makes no difference to me who did the killings, you and Gotunks were arguing so I posted the UN numbers. What matters to me is that war might start again and innocents will die for it. Also, that FARC has 0 high ground at this point, they are not even fighting for the USSR style of communism they once were, now it is simply power and money. You want to combine the government killings and the paramilitary killings into one group, great do it. Now they killed way more over the course of the war. So do you think the FARC restarting the war is not going to again lead to all those killings by both sides? Also, do you understand that the FARC now is not the same FARC of the past? At one point they were arguably the "good guys" or at least had a robin hood feel. Not the case any more. You don't seem to be arguing anything of substance or merit. You do seem to be desperately trying to do something but I'm not sure it's really "change the topic" exactly. That it makes no difference to you who did the killings should be enough to dismiss your opinion as absurdly foolish on it's own but it certainly infected the rest of whatever you're trying to do. You say what matters to you is that "war might start again and innocents will die for it" but then suggest FARC is restarting the war. Which neglects FARC and their supporters (as well as just human rights advocates) have been and keep getting killed by the right wing military/paramilitary/government you initially parroted were responsible for 50% less of the killings (though you now argue your post had no value to you/anyone other than to add information, which you had no idea as to its value, or lack thereof). FARC isn't restarting anything and you haven't demonstrated you know much of anything about FARC and the situation in Colombia beyond what you just recently sorta read on wiki. The tertiary point was that your posts on the subject should be disregarded as uninformed and misleading, because as I've demonstrated here, they are. In war there is very rarely a "good guy" and your framing demonstrates further why your posts on the matter should be disregarded by those looking to be better informed on the situation. So tell me what is so terrible about the CURRENT government...
They are either actively encouraging or at minimum turning a practical blind eye to political opposition (human rights defenders and such) being slaughtered by supporters of the current president/members of security forces.
From an earlier post/UN:
in the first four months of 2019 recorded a total of 51 human rights defenders and activists have been allegedly killed.
“This staggering number continues a negative trend that intensified during 2018, when our staff documented the killings of 115 human rights defenders”, he said.
From the same post/Colombia Reports:
But the Aguilas Negras threatened the “death to all collaborators” of the campaign of the leftist opposition leader who received 8 million votes in the presidential election.
So far, the administration of President Ivan Duque has done nothing against the group that has expressed its support for the president and his political patron, former President Alvaro Uribe.
Electoral observers and political analysts on multiple occasions have warned* about a possible escalation of deadly political violence, particularly targeting aspiring politicians challenging the country’s traditional political dynasties, ahead of October’s elections.
When you say "FARC... start a war vs gain political popularity" not only are you grossly mischaracterizing the situation, you're calling for them to vote (in a questionable at best process) against being murdered in the streets as if that's not equally absurd to not caring about who is doing the killing.
|
|
|
On August 31 2019 10:57 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2019 10:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 31 2019 10:19 JimmiC wrote:On August 31 2019 08:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 31 2019 06:02 JimmiC wrote:On August 31 2019 04:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 31 2019 00:49 JimmiC wrote:
So same as usual. Oh well.
Edit: Oh I guess you edited in a response to this post so I'll edit in a response to yours?
I have no idea what you arguing or what the point is. Like do you think FARC should resume the civil war? Is that what you are trying to get at?
And I'm really not interested in going down the path of me saying "yes the US did shitty things" and you saying "no you don't get it, they also did these shitty things" and me going " I know but what about...." and you going " but you don't get it they also did these shitty things. These are uninteresting conversations that go no where so I just tried to end it.
What is your end game? What point are you trying to make? I presume this to mean you in fact don't know what you're arguing or what you're arguing against and just saying things to say them. I've told you already and you said you didn't want to discuss it because it's been "done to death" even though you obviously had no idea. I am not interested in talking about the relationship between the right-wing paramilitaries and the government because that has been done to death, and despite your feelings to the opposite we really don't disagree. You say we "really don't disagree" but we obviously do. Your assertion from (dated) UN statistics that: So that is the drug dealers with the most by far and the FARC with 50% more than the government. should be retracted or corrected. But several posts in of you purposefully avoiding that simple point (and your admitted continued obliviousness to it) indicates you're not going to recognize why your misleading posts are so problematic. I'm not arguing any point against you, I'm desperately trying to change the topic because it is irrelevant to the discussion at hand, which is why I asked your point. It honestly makes no difference to me who did the killings, you and Gotunks were arguing so I posted the UN numbers. What matters to me is that war might start again and innocents will die for it. Also, that FARC has 0 high ground at this point, they are not even fighting for the USSR style of communism they once were, now it is simply power and money. You want to combine the government killings and the paramilitary killings into one group, great do it. Now they killed way more over the course of the war. So do you think the FARC restarting the war is not going to again lead to all those killings by both sides? Also, do you understand that the FARC now is not the same FARC of the past? At one point they were arguably the "good guys" or at least had a robin hood feel. Not the case any more. You don't seem to be arguing anything of substance or merit. You do seem to be desperately trying to do something but I'm not sure it's really "change the topic" exactly. That it makes no difference to you who did the killings should be enough to dismiss your opinion as absurdly foolish on it's own but it certainly infected the rest of whatever you're trying to do. You say what matters to you is that "war might start again and innocents will die for it" but then suggest FARC is restarting the war. Which neglects FARC and their supporters (as well as just human rights advocates) have been and keep getting killed by the right wing military/paramilitary/government you initially parroted were responsible for 50% less of the killings (though you now argue your post had no value to you/anyone other than to add information, which you had no idea as to its value, or lack thereof). FARC isn't restarting anything and you haven't demonstrated you know much of anything about FARC and the situation in Colombia beyond what you just recently sorta read on wiki. The tertiary point was that your posts on the subject should be disregarded as uninformed and misleading, because as I've demonstrated here, they are. In war there is very rarely a "good guy" and your framing demonstrates further why your posts on the matter should be disregarded by those looking to be better informed on the situation. So tell me what is so terrible about the CURRENT government... They are either actively encouraging or at minimum turning a practical blind eye to political opposition (human rights defenders and such) being slaughtered by supporters of the current president/members of security forces. From an earlier post/UN: in the first four months of 2019 recorded a total of 51 human rights defenders and activists have been allegedly killed.
“This staggering number continues a negative trend that intensified during 2018, when our staff documented the killings of 115 human rights defenders”, he said. From the same post/Colombia Reports: But the Aguilas Negras threatened the “death to all collaborators” of the campaign of the leftist opposition leader who received 8 million votes in the presidential election.
So far, the administration of President Ivan Duque has done nothing against the group that has expressed its support for the president and his political patron, former President Alvaro Uribe.
Electoral observers and political analysts on multiple occasions have warned* about a possible escalation of deadly political violence, particularly targeting aspiring politicians challenging the country’s traditional political dynasties, ahead of October’s elections. When you say "FARC... start a war vs gain political popularity" not only are you grossly mischaracterizing the situation, you're calling for them to vote (in a questionable at best process) against being murdered in the streets as if that's not equally absurd to not caring about who is doing the killing. And you think a group of drug dealers are going to do better?
You think using "drug dealer" in itself as a pejorative is really a good look in 2019? Anyway... even if FARC was what you're imagining, the choice isn't between drug dealers and non-drug dealers.
You are talking about starting a war so a different group of evil assholes can take over. There is no way any marginal gain is worth the casualties that will happen.
No, the right wing paramilitary and the government never ended the war, they used the ceasefire to lure out human rights defenders and murder them.
And likely you know this and this is why you constantly dodge the questions about why FARC is good. If you notice I have not said, the security forces and government of Columbia is great, but for some reason every time I explain to you why FARC is evil you write about how bad the government is. The government being shitheads does not make FARC good. What makes current FARC good?
I never said FARC is good and explicitly said conflicts like this rarely have "good guys". Further I told you framing it as such betrays a thorough lack of understanding of the complexities of the civil and international conflicts at play.
|
|
|
On August 31 2019 11:54 JimmiC wrote:
So you think war is good because a different group of bad guys will take power?
Or you had no point other than to say the columbia government is bad which I agree with. Im pretty sure you are not arguing with me, youre arguing with your assumptions of me.
This is the third time I'm explaining that my main point was that your characterization parroted from the UN on who is killing whom was one of several uninformed/misleading posts you've made on the topic and that your posts should be disregarded by those wishing to be better informed about the situation.
This is another example of you doing that. Not only should your posts be disregarded when it comes to Colombia, they should be disregarded when they attempt to articulate an argument I'm making as they are habitually wrong or altogether fictional.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
