EPTSouth American Politics thread - Page 38
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22696 Posts
On August 31 2019 12:50 JimmiC wrote: You have issues I started this by saying that I was not the well informed on columbia and had read few articles and thw wiki pages, linked it and summarized it. So yes parroted. You posted some stuff, i didnt argue I agreed columbian government and paramilitary groups were bad. But that FARC in its current state is worse or at least as bad so war would be awful. You continued to argue with me which lead me to believe you were arguing that FARC was good and there should be war. You have now said this is not true that you think FARC is bad, but continue to argue that columbia government is bad(argue with no one since no one is disagreeing). You might think this bad group should start war, but you have not said one way or another. And you have been up on you soap box thrashing me and my information, which I told you was limited from the start. So pretty much your being a jerk to me just because, and dodging any position of your own. It is very strange behavior. You r relentlessly trying to argue with me, foe what reason you are going to have look inside. Like I said earlier your mad at the UN report and the wiki. Go get mad at them, or correct what you think is wrong sourced, it is a wiki you can dothat. Your argument doesn't demonstrate basic comprehension of what I've already said. Not agreement or disagreement (which I think you are still wrong about) but you don't understand the critique. When you say " columbia government is bad, But that FARC in its current state is worse..." you demonstrate not only are you unaware of the situation, but you're an unwitting dupe in right-wing anti-human rights propaganda because of it. | ||
|
Aquanim
Australia2849 Posts
On August 31 2019 13:32 GreenHorizons wrote:...When you say " columbia government is bad, But that FARC in its current state is worse..." you demonstrate not only are you unaware of the situation, but you're an unwitting dupe in right-wing anti-human rights propaganda because of it. Can you elaborate on why you believe FARC is not worse? I emphasise that this requires a comparison and not just explaining why the government or whoever else is bad. If you have made such a comparison previously, please link it because I have not yet found it. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22696 Posts
reported by civil society, State institutions and the national human rights institution, that 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. On August 30 2019 23:53 GreenHorizons wrote: 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 https://tl.net/forum/postmessage.php?quote=729&topic_id=543016 We have good reason to believe the government has brutally killed thousands more than originally thought in exchange for cash and supplies from the US. As well as that the continued murders of various leftists likely follow this same pattern. “‘False positives’ were not just a problem of a few bad apples,” said José Miguel Vivanco, Americas director at Human Rights Watch. “These apparently widespread and systematic extrajudicial killings were committed by troops attached to virtually all brigades in every single army division across Colombia.” The inflated figures, dubbed “false positives”, were used to justify US aid military packages while the officers who carried out the executions were rewarded with promotions and time off. ...not a single general has been convicted. The other comparison I've implicitly made is that FARC exists because of wealth inequality, whereas right-wing and private interests (that fund the right wing terrorists, like Chiquita for example) seek to exacerbate it. EDIT btw, I don't think it's on me to make my oppositions argument for them, if they are going to repeatedly assert that FARC is worse or the same it's on them to support/defend that. | ||
|
Aquanim
Australia2849 Posts
Nevertheless I don't think you have adequately justified your position that the current FARC is or would be an improvement on the alternative. On August 31 2019 16:07 GreenHorizons wrote:... EDIT btw, I don't think it's on me to make my oppositions argument for them, if they are going to repeatedly assert that FARC is worse or the same it's on them to support/defend that. On some level this is true. However when you make the statements that someone else is "unaware of the situation" and "an unwitting dupe" you are responsible for justifying those statements. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22696 Posts
On August 31 2019 16:53 Aquanim wrote: I appreciate that you went to some effort to edit in some statements about FARC after originally making an argument about the government "regardless of FARC" or some such. Nevertheless I don't think you have adequately justified your position that the current FARC is or would be an improvement on the alternative. On some level this is true. However when you make the statements that someone else is "unaware of the situation" and "an unwitting dupe" you are responsible for justifying those statements. I figured you'd be unsatisfied and want it spelled out. I didn't argue "current FARC (which isn't really clear what that means to each person using it) would be an improvement" so it's not on me to demonstrate that. As to the unwitting dupe I think it's obvious in context but I'll explain. Gotunks says: On August 30 2019 02:34 GoTuNk! wrote: The colombian government, backed by the international left and AGAINST a popular referendum in the country, sponsored a massive pardon, parliament seats and tons of money towards FARC terrorist and criminals when the movement was close to complete military defeat. This as a result of the "Havana accords". Naturally, they used all of this to revitalize the movement and on top of it put the blame on the colombian government. Hopefully this time stupidity will be left aside, and they will get hunt down, killed or imprisoned, and the movement disbanded as they should have last time. Which is a gross mischaracterization as I've (and sbubbles to an extent) argued and the last part is particularly disturbing on a human level and in the context of his similar support of Pinochet and his CIA trained death squads. Most relevant to the point though, it's right-wing propaganda designed to make the government look overly reasonable and FARC like irreconcilable terrorists that should be exterminated. Then JimmiC (acting as an unwitting dupe) says: On August 30 2019 02:44 JimmiC wrote: I'm worried it could lead to a war between Venezuela and Columbia. The FARC is allowed to freely operate in Venezuela and has helped Maduro keep control and increased the reach of his drug empire. So they will be well funded and make attacks then retreat across the border. At some point the Columbia military is going to chase. Which carries several layers of propaganda but ironically is more or less what I suggested was most likely when the coup or whatever people want to call it started in Venezuela. That right-wing narco gangs sponsored by the US/corporations left to run rampant under (and potentially reciprocally supported by) the Colombian president or maybe the military itself will start leaking across the border potentially sparking a larger conflict as well as further destabilizing already deep, regional, and international conflicts. But most importantly it takes a group that is a symptom of the intentional exploitation and marginalization of Colombians and persisting/growing wealth inequality and turns them into the catalyst and instigator despite them being basically openly hunted in their own country for their political beliefs (which extends beyond FARC to even moderate and/or more perhaps sincere leftists/human rights advocates). Further, when trying to play the role of sensible mediator he deepens the impact of the propaganda (should it have gone unchallenged as is likely without my protests). 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. Besides being inaccurate, it further gives legitimacy to the extremist right wing position expressed originally by Gotunks. He certainly (I'm presuming here) wouldn't think he's supporting what amounts to the intentional extermination of human rights advocates in Colombia by the government and extrajudicial gangs with which they have been shown to be far too close and were engaged in the worst of the worst things that happened pre and post accord. Clearly demonstrating how his argument was one of an unwitting dope. There's more with the misleading attribution of deaths during the height of the conflict and the pejorative use of "drug dealers" while seemingly not showing reasonable deference to the fact that there are "drug dealers" on every side of the conflict and within/supported by all the governments involved (and many of them support the government back). I just thought that should be sufficient at this point. EDIT: That you went through much if not all of that discussion and felt compelled to critique my argument rather than the jumbled mess JimmiC presented gives me pause as to your intention here? | ||
|
Aquanim
Australia2849 Posts
On August 31 2019 18:08 GreenHorizons wrote:... I didn't argue "current FARC (which isn't really clear what that means to each person using it) would be an improvement" so it's not on me to demonstrate that. You claimed that believing the inverse of this meant that somebody was "unaware of the situation". If you said that in error I invite you to retract it. EDIT: That you went through much if not all of that discussion and felt compelled to critique my argument rather than the jumbled mess JimmiC presented gives me pause as to your intention here? I don't really feel the need to further engage with somebody playing the man rather than the ball. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22696 Posts
On August 31 2019 19:31 Aquanim wrote: You claimed that believing the inverse of this meant that somebody was "unaware of the situation". If you said that in error I invite you to retract it. I don't really feel the need to further engage with somebody playing the man rather than the ball. No, I don't think I did claim that? You can show me or retract? My point was that I question what your purpose of engaging is when after reading that discussion you felt compelled only to critique my argument. How you've concluded your engagement gives me further pause as to what the purpose was. I mean they admitted they were relatively unaware of the situation anyway so I'm even more curious as to what you are trying to argue/demonstrate than I was before this post? | ||
|
Aquanim
Australia2849 Posts
On August 31 2019 13:32 GreenHorizons wrote:...When you say " columbia government is bad, But that FARC in its current state is worse..." you demonstrate not only are you unaware of the situation... | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22696 Posts
On August 31 2019 21:18 Aquanim wrote: I suppose that's a matter of miscommunication? I'm not saying FARC should take over government. I'm saying the harm caused by the Colombian government is worse than FARC historically or currently. The inverse would be that FARC is causing more harm/"worse" harm, which no one has made any argument of merit towards. EDIT: Just to do it literally and lay it out plainly: "FARC is bad, but that the Colombian government, in its current state, is worse." Demonstrates a position that is at least congruous with a general awareness of the situation (even if it leaves room to quibble over interpretations of information and events). "The Colombian government is bad, but FARC in it's current state is worse" demonstrates basically the opposite. Not only a general unawareness of the situation (as I showed imo) but emboldens those that are terrorizing and murdering human rights advocates while supporting the President who does essentially nothing about it. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22696 Posts
On August 31 2019 23:42 JimmiC wrote: The blind spot mixed in with the condescension is really hard to take to be honest. It is clear that you think it is the right decision for FARC to start up the civil war. To me this is just another example of you only being against terrorism and oppression when it is done by the right. If it is done by a group who claims to be in the left then you believe it is justified because they are fighting the right which is far more evil. The reality is they are two sides of the same coin and you are just believing the other sides propaganda. You've repeated this crap ad nauseam without ever backing it up, stop please. Or someone with some integrity hold him accountable. AND while you are claiming the government is turning a blind eye to the killings, they actually put a bunch of soldiers in jail for it, Yeah soldiers, not their commanders, they have not seen a shred of accountability. It's foolish to think locking up the pawns is anything more than window dressing. FARC has not put anyone in jail for their shit, because... they aren't the government. FARC putting someone in "prison" (they don't have prisons) would be called "kidnapping" or something similar.So for like the 4th time what makes you believe current FARC ( if you feel current is too vague use the last 10 years) is socialist and will make it better for the people? And how will they do it? Have I said I think FARC is socialist or they will make it better for the people? If not, you should probably stop asking why I do, or how they will and being disappointed? You habitually do this. Where you imagine a position I haven't taken, I call you out,and you just keep repeating it and accusing me of dodging defending a position I don't hold and never said. Someone with some integrity tell him I'm not making that up and it's not a reversible accusation, please? | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22696 Posts
On September 01 2019 00:16 JimmiC wrote: good then we have not been arguing at all, FARC is a terrorist group and should not start a war. Again, still wrong. We don't agree and I've expressed my point multiple ways and times. As usual, it's been insufficient to breech your bold and brash arguments demonstrably based in ignorance. I can only hope people see how your argument emboldens the people killing innocent civilians for advocating for human/women's rights. And why your posts on this topic in particular should be disregarded by those who want to be better informed (other than as an example of what not to do/believe). EDIT:I used the US to make, what I'd hope is a more relatable analogy, read at your own risk if your sensitive to the US being mentioned: + Show Spoiler + I'm sure all this is gibberish to some of you uninterested in much of this so let me give a crude analogy to make it more relatable. JimmiC has basically taken up the South American version of Trump supports defending Trump and his white supremacist supporters (in and out of government/authority positions) by pointing to immigrants/gangs/the left as worse despite evidence to the contrary. Then he turned me saying the (to carry the crude analogy) "US government is worse (causes far more suffering, including being the reason crips exist) than the crips and to say otherwise takes severe ignorance (like of the hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians including kids on school buses blown to bits by our bombs/with our help just during the duration of our still ongoing "not wars") into saying that Crips are socialist and will make things better. And Aqua tried to turn it into me saying Crips should run the government. The point is was and will be that characterizations that make FARC out to be irrational and irreconcilable terrorists and the government to be the better of the two (or even variations of "the same") are both ill informed and dangerously misleading. EDIT2: As well as suggesting that they can even start a war while being basically openly hunted in the streets alongside any supporters anywhere to the left of the party in power. It's so out in the open Gotunk was able to freely advocate for hunting them down like rabid animals. Which is also where using "drug dealers" as a dehumanizing pejorative in itself is emblematic of the problematic roots of this line of thinking. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22696 Posts
On September 01 2019 00:55 JimmiC wrote: How about you explain what you think my argument is? I honestly think you don't even know, not only what my actual argument is, because that much is clear. But I'm not even sure you have formulated an argument for me in your head but are more or less yelling into the darkness. Prove me wrong! You haven't made a coherent argument as far as I or anyone else can tell thus far. If I were to boil it down, it's the empty platitude that "war is bad" along with some terrible framing. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22696 Posts
On September 01 2019 01:10 JimmiC wrote: So why are you constantly arguing if you can't even understand my very simple argument? I get it and you just showed it's exactly the empty platitude that war is bad and your awful framing, it's just not a coherent argument. As to why, like I've said like half a dozen times now (which you don't engage with): The point is was and will be that characterizations that make FARC out to be irrational and irreconcilable terrorists and the government to be the better of the two (or even variations of "the same") are both ill informed and dangerously misleading As well as: And why your posts on this topic in particular should be disregarded by those who want to be better informed (other than as an example of what not to do/believe). FARC starting a war is worse than them not, because at best they would be marginally better, but more likely the same, and possibly even worse. So when you consider that war is guaranteeing some pretty awful atrocities it is a no brainer. ^This is the terrible framing I was talking about here: As well as suggesting that they can even start a war while being basically openly hunted in the streets alongside any supporters anywhere to the left of the party in power. It's so out in the open Gotunk was able to freely advocate for hunting them down like rabid animals. Which is also where using "drug dealers" as a dehumanizing pejorative in itself is emblematic of the problematic roots of this line of thinking. and here: If I were to boil it down, it's the empty platitude that "war is bad" along with some terrible framing Maybe you should put in some effort in understanding someones point before arguing against it, might make your arguments a little more compelling and a little less screaming into the wind. I understand your point, it's just poorly formed. You have demonstrated multiple times now that you either don't get my point (despite having it spelled out for you multiple times) or just refuse to engage with it. On a side note, when you constantly defend the FARC, Maduro, China, the USSR and even NK even though you never directly say you support them, you often say that the US or who ever is worse. This causes everyone to presume you do support them. Especially when you never say that you don't support them just that "you didn't explicitly say that". I don't defend them from legitimate and well informed critique, just stuff like the drivel you typically put out. Again, (well rather for the first time), prove me wrong. In simple form what is you argument on whether or not FARC should restart the civil war? For the umpteenth time: The point is was and will be that characterizations that make FARC out to be irrational and irreconcilable terrorists and the government to be the better of the two (or even variations of "the same") are both ill informed and dangerously misleading andFARC can't start a war if they are still being hunted despite the peace accord. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22696 Posts
On September 01 2019 01:38 JimmiC wrote: Do you understand that the FARC that is left is being hunted because they chose to remain drug lords? The rest of FARC disbanded and became a legitimate political party. Maybe this is the key fact you have over looked? The rest of you stuff is mainly just insults at me, used to frustrate me now I just feel sad for you. Why are you so angry? ... they were being hunted/terrorized before they were drug lords, after they were drug lords as well as innocent civilian women's/human rights advocates, the ~8 million supporters of the political opposition that have nothing to do with FARC or drugs, and just innocent civilians at the wrong place at the wrong time that catch a bullet so the military can get paid. I'm not angry, I'm disappointed/frustrated none of the lurkers have the chutzpah to call out what has become abundantly obvious about your posting. | ||
| ||
