Job Discussion Forums

[kingkristopher]

"You wouldn't see the same thing happening across the Canada-US border, or the US-Mexico border, but then again, we're talking pretty remote jungle here between Ecuador and Colombia"

Ok, sorry to take this quote out of context (and to single it out...) but it seems to me that ALL of you are (deliberately?) missing the point. The FARC consistently seeks refuge in Ecuador and Venezuela after perpetrating acts of terrorism in Colombia. The FARC is a blight on Colombia and the world in general. They should be hunted down like the animals that they are regardless of whatever hole that they slither into. If that doesn't sit well with idiots like Chavez or any of his mindless cronies, then maybe they shouldn't allow that slime into their countries in the first place.

Let's say that my neighbour has a problem with roaches and that while he's trying to exterminate them some of them escape into my garage. Let's also say that my neighbour takes it upon himself to enter my garage without asking and crush those disgusting little bugs. What reasonable person would have a problem with that? Would I be peeved that my neighbour didn't ask for my permission? Sure. Would I be so peeved that I would condemn my neighbour as a criminal and aid the roaches in their struggle? Don't be ridiculous. That's what Chavez is being, ridiculous. Just a load of posturing and rhetoric.

And to comment on the quote, no we wouldn't see this happening in Canada or Mexico. We wouldn't see this because neither Canada nor Mexico would be criminal enough to allow terrorism a safe haven.

And for those of you who don't believe that the FARC have computers, what year are you living in?

[JonnyBravo]

[JonnyBravo]

[kingkristopher]

I don't know if the 300 million is trumped up or not, but personally I find it VERY likely to be true. Chavez is falling over himself these days to support the FARC and agitate the U.S. Seems like he'd kill two birds with one stone here.

Then again, all that glitters is not gold. The U.S. definitely has a history of trumping up charges (WMD anyone?). Tough call. I'd still lean towards it being true, but obviously that would have to be determined by an objective (if such a thing exists) 3rd party.

[kingkristopher]

"That's the worst analogy I've ever heard. You're comparison of FARC rebels to roaches is the right-wing version of Chavez' pathetic diatribe. I don't think there is a government on this entire planet that wouldn't be upset by a foreign military crossing into their territory unannounced and killing people. There is a concept called international law."

Yes, and that obscure little concept called "international law" also forbids the sheltering of terrorism. The U.S. isn't the only country to use international law when it's in their interest, but conveniently forget it when it's not. And the comparison of FARC to roaches is valid. One does not have to be right-wing (as a matter of fact I am not) to loathe terrorism. One only has to observe its effects first-hand (as I have).

Though I will concede that the U.S. praising this move was out of line. It was, as you stated, a breach of international law (albeit a reasonable and necessary one) and shouldn't be trumpeted.

[ajarnlilly]

Yes, Jon, this is precisely about a breach of international law.

Chasing criminals across international borders is just the excuse. Ecuador has no responsibility for keeping them out, nor has it the power.

Colombia, with its billions in donated military assistance could take the responsibility if it were possible and if they chose to. With their herbicides they could defoliate the whole border if they chose to. But a raid in the dark of night is more expedient and has no witnesses. If Colombia could track their prey so precisely in Ecuador, they could just as well have done the same thing to him while he was on their side of the border. It's not like they were in hot pursuit and just didn't notice they'd crossed the border. Even in the US, law enforcement has jurisdictions they have to respect. Rather than cockroaches in a garage for an analogy, a better one would be for a county sheriff's deputy in Michigan to chase a suspect into Canada, kill him and take the body, without communicating with Canadian law enforcement. The fact that a Mexican national was one of the wounded left behind without medical attention could also be of international interest.

The $300 million in question is reported to be the amount paid to FARC to get some hostages released, an act which the hostages and their families considered humanitarian, not support for the criminals who kidnapped them. Now it is being twisted into something else. Colombia seemed willing to cooperate with the hostage release at the time.

And equating our fellow human beings, criminal or not, with cockroaches and slime is pathetic. Dehumanizing the opponent is a first step in abuse of power and the might-makes-right attitude is typical of all such radicals.

I don't have the impression that Correa is interested in pushing any leftist agenda outside his own country, but I could be wrong. I get the impression he is truly interested in helping his country modernize without the usual ripping off of the indigenous and the poor to the benefit of the wealthy, the way its usually done in LA.

One of the reasons there is no Ecuadorean FARC is that Ecuador is trying to help the small farmers modernize and keep their own cultures, instead of stealing their land and disenfranchising them as was done in Colombia to the pre-FARC-farmers. There are also extensive efforts to make these gains be sustainable without trashing the environment or marginalizing the lower economic levels of their citizenry. Of course mistakes will be made. I just hope the CIA stays out of it this time around.

Chavez is not "trying to agitate the US". He is afraid, for good reason that the CIA will try to undermine him and overthrow him. They've already tried once and failed, but, as in trying to assassinate Castro, they probably won't give up on the first try. I think if I were in his position I would be rattling my saber too. I think he is saying, 'I know you can kill me, but I'm going to fight you until you do.'

(Read "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man" for further enlightenment on the non-military ways of overthrowing a country, written by one who did it for a living.)
-Lilly

[ajarnlilly]

The beeped words are not obscene so I don't what the problem is. I wrote the full length word for 'roaches' which has been used elsewhere in this discussion. That is, the word 'cock' conjoined with 'roaches'.

And, no, FARC guerrillas are no more roaches than the right wing extra-military (read: vigilantes) who helped create them by murdering them, poisoning their water, raping their women and kidnapping their children, just to get their land.

[ajarnlilly]

Oh, I see! So if I want to talk about my chickens I can't tell you that I keep one cock for every dozen hens and likewise we can't talk about cockfighting here.

[JonnyBravo]

[kingkristopher]

The right-wing paramilitaries (ELN) are also roaches in my book. Terrorists are terrorists, regardless of their political affiliation, though I'm not sure what that has to do with this topic...

I think the real problem here is that people are way too partisan to deal with the situation objectively. The left likes Chavez and thus feels obliged to support everything he says and does as if he were some type of God. Similarly, right-wing nuts will praise Bush for his actions in Iraq and elsewhere. Personally, I deplore the FARC for their tactics, not their politics (not that they are driven by politics anymore...)

Your analogy of the county sheriff would be a good one if we were talking about mere criminals, and not terrorists. Terrorists cannot be given the message that haven is available just by crossing a line on a map. I agree that this raid was premeditated and deliberate. I personally believe that Colombia waited until FARC was inside Ecuador to launch the operation. The benefits of such an (illegal) action would be twofold: first, to prove to the international community that Ecuador is at best lax in its border security and at worst complicit in the FARC's actions and second, to send a message to FARC that they will NOT be safe by simply scurrying away when the lights are turned on.

As for my dehumanisation of FARC, it was a simple analogy. Figures of speech. But, as far as humans go, they are definitely at the low end of the spectrum along with people who strap bombs to their body and blow stuff up or others who force people in gas showers or ovens.

[kingkristopher]

"your roach analogy is terrible. And dehumanizing"

Dehumanising is taking people away from their homes and families, forcing them to live in squalor and filth for years on end, physically, mentally and otherwise abusing them and playing them off as pawns in some sick game. That's dehumanising. Calling someone a roach is a figure of speech. Get a grip.

"First you have to prove that Ecuador was actively harboring terrorists as opposed to unknowingly harboring terrorists. Even then, you're assertion is iffy at best. According to the "Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts": "

Agreed, proving it was state-sponsored (if in fact it even is, which I concede is unlikey) would be very difficult. That's why I feel that Colombia was in such a difficult situation. I don't necessarily believe that Ecuador's president is sponsoring terrorism (though it's not out of the question), but certainly he IS turning a blind eye to what's going on, as is Chavez at the VERY least.

Colombia had to do this to send a message to the FARC. No, it wasn't legal. No, they probably shouldn't do it again. But I certainly would have done the same thing if I were in their shoes. Why risk alerting the Ecuadorian government when there's a good chance they'll tip off your target? I don't question that the action was illegal. Unfortunately, in a war, sometimes you have to take drastic action.

[JonnyBravo]

It's a figure of speech crafted with a deliberate meaning. Being a figure of speech and being dehumanizing are not mutually exclusive. The analogy doesn't really work, for reasons stated above, unless your point was that cooperative annihilation never hurt anybody.

[kingkristopher]

Fine, we disagree on that. As I've posted above, I'd reserve the term "dehumanising" for actions that seek to rob someone of their essential human nature, not simply name-calling, but I digress. Besides, the real issue isn't what I may think about the FARC (though I AM surprised at the number of you willing to jump to their defense, maybe a run-in or two with them would change your mind?).

[ajarnlilly]

King, please don't confuse condemnation of assassination of a FARC leader for support for what they do.

Your assertion that Colombia HAD to do it this is absurd. There are a lot of more civilized ways to catch this guy, if they had wanted to. But this way, they didn't have to let him tell his side of the story in a trial, a story that would be pretty ugly.

In the 80's FARC agreed to a negotiated settlement and laid down their arms, only to have 3,000 of them massacred by the Colombian Army. What would anyone do in their position?

More recently FARC unilaterally gave up some hostages in return for nothing. In return one of their leaders is assassinated. Uribe only wants to exterminate them, not bring them to justice, since justice is not what he has to offer to them and those like them. Both Venezuela and Ecuador have stopped disenfranchising the indigenous and stealing their land and their labor. Naturally this makes Uribe and the US nervous; they look bad by comparison. Thousands of poor Colombians have also fled to Venezuela where they are being treated like people instead of inconveniences.

I'll bet the CIA is involved in this and it's part of a build up toward trying again to undermine duly elected leaders of 2 countries that won't kiss US butt anymore. The CIA and their "dirty wars" in LA have caused more suffering and death than FARC will ever do. They're both wrong to do it, but the scale of it and the motivation are so different.

To label them terrorists is just a code word used for dehumanizing them some more, and trivializing their valid reasons for insurrection. Bush does it, too, so that any tyranny from the neo-fascist homeland security can be justified. The US has exchanged the moral authority it once had for the position of world bully. The hypocrisy of calling for democratization while overthrowing democratically elected leaders and supporting right wing dictators just astounds me.