Colombia Rejoices-Narco Gangster Scum Eliminated

[Pliny]

Really? Are you referring to my unequivocal, outright condemnation of FARC as terrorists...or to Bill Barilko's pretence, based on nothing, that I somehow admire them?

No. I am not referring to your condemnation of FARC as terrorists or to bill_barilko's pretence that you admire them but on the following:

bloodyminded: True, they're certainly no different from the Colombian military and its paramilitary allies; who have murdered more innocent people (usually with crude attempts at cover-ups) than FARC has managed to do in its ignominious career.

Your attempt is to imply that the Columbian military and it's paramilitary allies are the same Columbian apparatus as under Uribe today.

It seems semantics are important to you and I notice although you say you outright condemn FARC as terrorists, can you say you outright condemn FARC itself? You seem to have no problem outright condemning the Columbian military, not just the Columbian military as murderers or their ignominious career.

Interestingly--and you definitely are aware of this, which makes your ommission interesting--Chavez is extremely popular.

Perhaps you believe that trivial matters like the opinions of the poor majority are not to be taken seriously.

As long as Chavez can feed them the poor will support him but he is finding it harder and harder as he kills the work ethic and the GDP drops. Supporting Chavez doesn't mean they are happy it means they are human and prefer to be given entitlements.

The difference in Columbia is that the peasants for the first time feel what they produce will not be stolen from them, either by leftist rebels, right wing extremists or the Government itself, and they can enjoy the fruits of their labour.

Edited November 6, 2010 by Pliny

[bloodyminded]

No. I am not referring to your condemnation of FARC as terrorists or to bill_barilko's pretence that you admire them but on the following:

Your attempt is to imply that the Columbian military and it's paramilitary allies are the same Columbian apparatus as under Uribe today.

No, not accurate. Uribe has been making moves away from his paramilitary associations (which were profoundly real); some of these moves have teeth (ie the occasional prosecution...though few are in fact ever indicted, an odd anomaly in a country with an extremely high indictment rate); and some are cosmetic, like his bland, toothless "disapprovals" of paramilitary assassinations of peasants and union leaders...interestingly, the paramilitary actions are generally favourable, in effect and ideology, to the government itself.

Fascinating coincidence.

But to reiterate: the relationships are not what they once were. The paramilitaries have become a headache, perhaps, and it's no longer worth it to maintain the open secret of their collaboration.

And this exonerates the government...how again?

When killers stop murdering, we're going to offer them applause for their moral giganticism?

You guys aren't hard to please.

You must adore Gaddaffi by this point.

It seems semantics are important to you and I notice although you say you outright condemn FARC as terrorists can you say you outright condemn FARC itself?

What the hell does this even mean? I'm condemning terrorists, but this is somehow insufficient? I should be condemning FARC as terrorists even if they weren't terrorists?

What are you getting at here?

You seem to have no problem outright condemning the Columbian military not just their ignominious career.

Again, this is nonsensicial. I condemned the Colombian military specifically and only for their actions. I don't condemn them because they're the Colombian military, full stop.

I can't imagine what you're trying to say. That I'm insufficiently "supportive of the troops," which now expands to Colombian troops? What?

As long as Chavez can feed them the poor will support him but he is finding it harder and harder as he kills the work ethic and the GDP drops. Supporting Chavez doesn't mean they are happy it means they are human and prefer to be given entitlements.

"Entitlements" like not starving, or not wasting away from TB and cholera. The self-entitled, greedy peasants of Venezuela!

The difference in Columbia is that the peasants for the first time feel what they produce will not be stolen from them, either by leftist rebels, right wing extremists or the Government itself, and they can enjoy the fruits of their labour.

For all his faults, Uribe has been a big improvement over past rulers there, I believe this is true.

But Colombia has "entitlements" too, Pliny; it's not quite an anarcho-capitalist paradise.

And--just like Venezuela--Colombia has serious problems, many of them the government's responsibility (even fault): terrible crime, lots of poverty, and so on.

I think you and Bill barilko have misunderstood, mostly by projecting your own worldviews onto me. Which isn't quite fair. Let me explain:

I wasn't extolling the wondrous virtues of Chavez, and defending his honour, and so on; that's what's being done, here, in regards to Uribe, which is the nosnense to which I object.

And when I pointed out that Colombia currently has the worst human rights abuses on the continent, that's not a radical view.

Hell, just read the US State Department's report on it; then read their report on Venezuela. You'll see a lot of similarities, except that Colombia comes across notably worse. And the major difference isn't FARC; the major difference is the government, and the military.

And the only reason I summon the State Department on this subject is because it is invariably the more ardently pro-US voices who, in keeping with obedience generally, are able to defend Colombia's worse human rights record over Venezuela's better one. So I figure an official US site might provide a stronger argument in this case than one of the leftier sources (who nonetheless are more apt to be correct than the rightist ones on this issue, since the latter are beset by US nationalism, even when they're not Americans themselves...an interesting phenomenon, better suited for another thread, perhaps).

[bill_barilko]

FYI Uribe is no longer-President hasn't been for some months.

I understand that not speaking any Spanish/never having visited Colombia/having no contacts there makes your views a tad skewed but Please try to limit your illiterate rants.

No one here cares if you embarrass yourself but it does lower the tone of the board somewhat.

[bloodyminded]

FYI Uribe is no longer-President hasn't been for some months.

Yes, and that's why I didn't make assumptions that the murderous policies of the past administration are certain to be continued in full.

Try to keep up.

I understand that not speaking any Spanish/never having visited Colombia/having no contacts there makes your views a tad skewed but Please try to limit your illiterate rants.

Please. We've already established that you don't understand English, since you drooled your cowardly nonsense about my support for FARC--after I had condemned them as terrorists and criminals.

So while you mock my lack of knowledge in a language we're not speaking, you'd be better to deride your own ignorance of the language we are speaking.

Edited November 7, 2010 by bloodyminded

[bill_barilko]

Keep up the gibberish you ponce-you wouldn't last 48 hours in Colombia.

Edited November 7, 2010 by bill_barilko

[bloodyminded]

Keep up the gibberish you ponce-you wouldn't last 48 hours in Colombia.

If a shrinking, frightened little loser like yourself can make it, I'd feel pretty confident about my chances. But I appreciate your kind and sincere concern.

[bill_barilko]

The vid contains a cultural reference to people like you-of course you can't understand it because of your paltry language skills.

To be expected.

[bloodyminded]

The vid contains a cultural reference to people like you-of course you can't understand it because of your paltry language skills.

To be expected.

Keep explaining your irrelevancies as if you're actually thinking before you post.

The other xenophobes and reactionaries might actually take you seriously.

[dre]

But you're clearly not fluent in English; and yet I'll generously try to explain once again:

Do you ever, I mean ever, offer any opinions on countries you haven't visited, in which the inhabitants speak a language with which you're unfamiliar?

If the answer is yes (and of course it is) then you are, like I said, full of horseshit. Also a hypocrite.

You can add that to your hardcore ideological fanatacism.

Again, you are insisting upon your own inability to read. (I presume your Spanish is equally terrible). And again, since I'm a decent sort, I will reiterate what was already plain in my remarks:

I wasn't supporting the Communist terrorists known as FARC.

That's why I called them "ignominious." (Go look it up, even if you find English really, really hard.)

The only one here who is supporting fanatical murderers is yourself--you think the Colombian military (and their technically illegal but still supported allies, the terroristic right-wing militias) are the Good Guys. Of course, you are a moral coward, so you take the conventional stance of all hard-right ideologues on this matter.

Easier than a little research.

So to be clear: I oppose terrorists and murderers.

And you support them.

Who knew it! All I had to do to become an authority on the Netherlands is spend two days banging hookers in Amsterdaam! Fuck history class!

[bloodyminded]

Who knew it! All I had to do to become an authority on the Netherlands is spend two days banging hookers in Amsterdaam! Fuck history class!

You got it, brother!

[Pliny]

No, not accurate. Uribe has been making moves away from his paramilitary associations (which were profoundly real); some of these moves have teeth (ie the occasional prosecution...though few are in fact ever indicted, an odd anomaly in a country with an extremely high indictment rate); and some are cosmetic, like his bland, toothless "disapprovals" of paramilitary assassinations of peasants and union leaders...interestingly, the paramilitary actions are generally favourable, in effect and ideology, to the government itself.

Fascinating coincidence.

But to reiterate: the relationships are not what they once were. The paramilitaries have become a headache, perhaps, and it's no longer worth it to maintain the open secret of their collaboration.

And this exonerates the government...how again?

When killers stop murdering, we're going to offer them applause for their moral giganticism?

You guys aren't hard to please.

You must adore Gaddaffi by this point.

What the hell does this even mean? I'm condemning terrorists, but this is somehow insufficient? I should be condemning FARC as terrorists even if they weren't terrorists?

What are you getting at here?

Again, this is nonsensicial. I condemned the Colombian military specifically and only for their actions. I don't condemn them because they're the Colombian military, full stop.

I can't imagine what you're trying to say. That I'm insufficiently "supportive of the troops," which now expands to Colombian troops? What?

I'll make it clearer for you. You might pick up why threads you care to post on seem to have a common theme of people misunderstanding you.

When you say something like the following:

bloodyminded: ...they're certainly no different from the Colombian military and its paramilitary allies; who have murdered more innocent people (usually with crude attempts at cover-ups) than FARC has managed to do in its ignominious career.

It is not a stretch to interpret that what you are saying is, FARC, even with it's ignominious terrorist career is a better option to favour over the Columbian military and it's paramilitary allies since "they have murdered more innocent people than FARC (usually with crude attempts at cover-ups)".

When someone does interrupt it that way and calls you a FARC communist sympathizer you get all upset because you never said that. True, bt it sure looks like your preference.

Also, the topic is about the positive changes in Colombia towards shedding it's narco-terrorist state image.

The facts are that crime is down significantly, tourism is up, the military is learning to respect human rights and the poorer population feels safer.

It's problems have by no means been eliminated.

"Entitlements" like not starving, or not wasting away from TB and cholera. The self-entitled, greedy peasants of Venezuela!

Chavez can only buy their support for awhile. Already, they line up for food as it becomes increasingly scarce.

For all his faults, Uribe has been a big improvement over past rulers there, I believe this is true.

If you would have made that clear in the first place the thread would not have deteriorated in the manner it did.

But Colombia has "entitlements" too, Pliny; it's not quite an anarcho-capitalist paradise.

No. It still has a problem, albeit lesser, with narco-terrorism.

What "entitlements" does the government provide in Colombia? Low cost housing, universal health care, subsidized food?

And--just like Venezuela--Colombia has serious problems, many of them the government's responsibility (even fault): terrible crime, lots of poverty, and so on.

Unarguably true. Unfortunately, Venezuela is on the descent and Colombia is on the rise.

I think you and Bill barilko have misunderstood, mostly by projecting your own worldviews onto me. Which isn't quite fair. Let me explain:

I wasn't extolling the wondrous virtues of Chavez, and defending his honour, and so on; that's what's being done, here, in regards to Uribe, which is the nosnense to which I object.

The changes in Colombia are positive and not nonsense. Are you changing your mind from your above statement that "....For all his faults, Uribe has been a big improvement over past rulers there."

And when I pointed out that Colombia currently has the worst human rights abuses on the continent, that's not a radical view.

Hell, just read the US State Department's report on it; then read their report on Venezuela. You'll see a lot of similarities, except that Colombia comes across notably worse. And the major difference isn't FARC; the major difference is the government, and the military.

I did read the Department of State's report on human rights for Colombia and Venezuela. They both have problems in government and Colombia has further to climb to bring itself to a more civilized level. In it's defence though, Venezuela has never been the narco-terrorist state that Colombia has been.

And the only reason I summon the State Department on this subject is because it is invariably the more ardently pro-US voices who, in keeping with obedience generally, are able to defend Colombia's worse human rights record over Venezuela's better one. So I figure an official US site might provide a stronger argument in this case than one of the leftier sources (who nonetheless are more apt to be correct than the rightist ones on this issue, since the latter are beset by US nationalism, even when they're not Americans themselves...an interesting phenomenon, better suited for another thread, perhaps).

The U.S. Department of State's report is simply a yearly formulaic construct based on statistical information and while it is perhaps a reliable source in a general sense it is definitely inadequate as a final assessment of specifics regarding a country. It is also, in my opinion, slanted towards protecting Americans traveling abroad and could thus be more critical than necessary.

Edited November 8, 2010 by Pliny

[Pliny]

Who knew it! All I had to do to become an authority on the Netherlands is spend two days banging hookers in Amsterdaam! Fuck history class!

And it seems you have no problem exercising that authority.

[bloodyminded]

I'll make it clearer for you. You might pick up why threads you care to post on seem to have a common theme of people misunderstanding you.

Pliny. On virtually every subject I post about, some people disagree with me, and others agree.

This distinguishes me from yourself...how again?

What you're really saying is that you often disagree with me...and that, for some reason (unstated), I should consider this profound development quite seriously.

It is not a stretch to interpret that what you are saying is, FARC, even with it's ignominious terrorist career is a better option to favour over the Columbian military and it's paramilitary allies since "they have murdered more innocent people than FARC (usually with crude attempts at cover-ups)".

No, they're not a better option; they're not an option at all. You have illegally detained fewer people than has the Toronto police; please don't misconstrue this observation for my advocacy for your promotion to Chief of Police.

When someone does interrupt it that way and calls you a FARC communist sympathizer you get all upset because you never said that. True, bt it sure looks like your preference.

Bbut now you're defending sheerly dishonest debating tactics. Bill barilko didn't mistake me for a communist sympathizer; he concocted it. I didn't object to the idiotic premise, because the premise was not genuine; I object to people lying and inventing whenever they realize that political debates are not often slam-dunk, black-and-white propositions that they can invariably "win."

Further, Mr. Barilko is working from the preposterous premise--which he stated to me outright, in the manner of a tantrum--that one shouldn't post anything about a country in which he has never visited and doesn't know the language.

Which knocks your own contributions here totally out, by definition. (Also, presumably, bb has never offerred anyone his opinion on, say, the war in Afghanistan...he can have no opinion whatsoever, according to his harsh standards.)

If you would have made that clear in the first place the thread would not have deteriorated in the manner it did./quote]

So, I should preface each post with some positive remarks about the figure or institution I'm criticizing?

I'm still looking for your nod towards Chavez (which I see you don't demand of me). Why should you hold me to higher standards than you hold yourself?

What "entitlements" does the government provide in Colombia? Low cost housing, universal health care, subsidized food?

Yes, Colombia does have universal health care...well, not quite universal, but then, neither does Canada. But it is in the Constitution that health care is a "right."

So there's your answer.

Edited November 8, 2010 by bloodyminded