Interpol: FARC files real

[Princeps]

Terrorism isnt legitimate

.

No, of course it isn't. Did I argue that?

Or perhaps not. Perhaps it is trying to get the terrorist label removed so it can fund and arm them with less international hubbub.

Well, no. Chavez has been working to release the hostages. Further yet, Venezuela is actively working against the FARC and other organizations on its shared 1300 mile long border with Colombia. The same is true with Ecuador.

The cause the feud between Uribe and Chavez is largely their different values and political view points.

Not true. Lack of corroborating evidence does not mean that the allegations are not true. It means there needs to be more evidence to confirm what was said in the emails back and forth from Venezuelan gov officials and FARC leaders.

No, we must have some standard of evidence here. Some of the most hyperbolic, completely unsubstantiated, vicious and slanderous propaganda has come from the Colombian and Western propagandists. We shouldn't trust them when they say something about Venezuela or Chavez, for the same reason we shouldn't trust any unsubstantiated accusation that is said about the US.

Keep dreaming. Chavez is dirty.

No, the overwhelming evidence is that Chavez is the democratically elected leader of Venezuela, and his policies of experimental mixed economics have helped Venezuelans. And he's been performing fairly well in the polls too, he consistently receives well over 50% positive votes.

Chavez is not a threat to the stability on the region, on the contrary. For example, he provides competition to the international lending markets, which is very good for developing world because it reduces conditionality and quite possibly the interest rates on the loans. I am not especially keen on embracing any leader, I shiver when I hear the word "leader", but Chavez is hardly criminal or rogue by any international standard. But he is a rogue by Washington's "with us or against us" standard.

Compared to the corrupt and criminal President "death squad" Uribe , Chavez is fairly clean. And I'll therefore defend him against petty accusations and propaganda, unless conclusive evidence is provided that he supported FARC's terrorist operations.

 

[MobBoss]

I just find it appalling you close your eyes on your own side if they commit crimes and attack the other.

Dude...where have I 'closed my eyes'? I fully acknowledge the Contras did some bad crap.....

But they werent given aid to do 'bad crap' against innocent targets....thus their funding was cut. Once they abused our support, we ended it.

Can the same be said of the communist backed leftist rebels?

If not, then why is it so bad to point that out?

but it takes a bit to of a reasonable stance for you to accept without losing your unwavering support for some persons.

I think you need to reread our entire exchange here for a true understanding of who is 'unwavering' and who is not.

I asked for proof of "Reagan death squads"....you tried to feed me a bunch of propaganda. In turn I supply facts and dont deny wrongdoing, but also point out that we dont support same and pulled our funding. Thats just historical fact. Now, if you want to return to your propaganda and call it all 'lies' thats your business. But what I have stated is simply true. /shrug.

 

[MobBoss]

.
Further yet, Venezuela is actively working against the FARC and other organizations on its shared 1300 mile long border with Colombia. The same is true with Ecuador.

Oh. My. God. All you have to do is listen to Chavez' own words in regards to FARC to realize this isnt true.

 

[philippe]

Dude...where have I 'closed my eyes'? I fully acknowledge the Contras did some bad crap.....

But they werent given aid to do 'bad crap' against innocent targets....thus their funding was cut. Once they abused our support, we ended it.

Can the same be said of the communist backed leftist rebels?

If not, then why is it so bad to point that out?



I think you need to reread our entire exchange here for a true understanding of who is 'unwavering' and who is not.

I asked for proof of "Reagan death squads"....you tried to feed me a bunch of propaganda. In turn I supply facts and dont deny wrongdoing, but also point out that we dont support same and pulled our funding. Thats just historical fact. Now, if you want to return to your propaganda and call it all 'lies' thats your business. But what I have stated is simply true. /shrug.

once again, it took 3 years and 50 k deaths to realise something was "wrong"?


and you didn't supply any facts, just the usual "propaganda".

and mobby, tell me on which side i am on.

 

[Princeps]

Oh. My. God. All you have to do is listen to Chavez' own words in regards to FARC to realize this isnt true.

We should take words of leaders at face value -- Chavez has said that they're willing to respect FARC (probably because they were trying to free hostages held by Farc) and he called for the terrorist status of FARC to be replaced with leigimate belligerent status (only if Farc renounces tactics of terrorism and kidnapping). Okay. But as far as I know, that doesn't imply any operational links between Venz. and Farc exist. In fact, Venezuela is fighting to stifle drug trade on its long borders -- trade which, btw, FARC needs. So the interests of FARC and Chavez actually collide.

The fact is that while Chavez is boorish publically, many have noted, even on the Colombian side, that he's often pragmatic.

 

[MobBoss]

and you didn't supply any facts, just the usual "propaganda".

Fact: US funding for the contras didnt begin until 1982.

Fact: US funding for the contras ended in 1985.

Fact: Reagan never ordered or authorized any death squads.

Fact: Reagan was cleared of any involvement or knowledge of Iran-Contra.

Fact: Nicaragua was supporting leftist rebels in El Salvador with aid from Cuba and the Soviets.

etc. etc.

What more facts did I 'not' supply? Or are you just in the habit of calling historical fact 'propaganda' because the truth ruins your side of the debate?

once again, it took 3 years and 50 k deaths to realise something was "wrong"?

No, it took 3 years for the data to be verified and acted upon by congress. Knowing our congress, I cant believe you think thats somehow out of line. Hell, I think its rather expedient of them to be honest. I am surprised it didnt take them longer....

 

[Princeps]

Fact: US funding for the contras didnt begin until 1982.

Rubbish. The US funding of Nicaraguan reactionary mass murderers began loooong before that. The Somoza dictatorship and his death sqauds ("national guard") were funded with US aid. After the dictatorship was overthrown, most or many of the former national guardsmen become contras.

Fact: Nicaragua was supporting leftist rebels in El Salvador with aid from Cuba and the Soviets.

This is not an issue.

First of all, there's a lack of evidence concerning this. Some of the weapons that the Leftist rebels in El Salvador received came from corrupt government bureocrats, who had received them from... the Contras! The Contras were provided with Russian weaponry by the US, and now the Leftist guerillas were using Russian made weapons! How convenient: Obviously now the Nicaraguans were supporting the Salvadorian guerillas.

Also, what's wrong with supporting leigimate peasant uprising against the horrendous, tyrannical ARENA regime, which commited 90 % of the atrocities?
The ARENA regime was also little more than US puppet regime.

The US poured heavy amounts of weapons to the Contras -- so much so that you could use the weapons to organize a guerilla army on the hills of Kentucky. They were provided with advanced weaponry and intelligence so that they could avoid military targets and slaughter civilians instead, as ordered by the State department. Don't delude yourself: the contras were not an independant organization, they were in every sense of the word US mercenaries, commanded, funded, organized by the US and it's impossible that Reagan would not have known about it.

Of course, you could say that he was so damn stupid he never understood, but that's hardly a kind thing to say.

 

[holy king]

Indeed.

Bastards.

adenauer was a terrorist?
i thought more about the contras or osama bin laden, but yeah, la resistance for example was supported by the usa too. they were terrorists.

 

[philippe]

Fact: US funding for the contras didnt begin until 1982.

Fact: US funding for the contras ended in 1985.

Fact: Reagan never ordered or authorized any death squads.

Fact: Reagan was cleared of any involvement or knowledge of Iran-Contra.

Fact: Nicaragua was supporting leftist rebels in El Salvador with aid from Cuba and the Soviets.

etc. etc.

What more facts did I 'not' supply? Or are you just in the habit of calling historical fact 'propaganda' because the truth ruins your side of the debate?



No, it took 3 years for the data to be verified and acted upon by congress. Knowing our congress, I cant believe you think thats somehow out of line. Hell, I think its rather expedient of them to be honest. I am surprised it didnt take them longer....

you think it's an fact becuase you say it is, that doesn't makes it a fact.

you failed mobby, as usual.

 

[holy king]

you think it's an fact becuase you say it is, that doesn't makes it a fact.

you failed mobby, as usual.

but there were no fundings of the contras after 85. scout's honor!

 

[MobBoss]

Rubbish. The US funding of Nicaraguan reactionary mass murderers began loooong before that. The Somoza dictatorship and his death sqauds ("national guard") were funded with US aid. After the dictatorship was overthrown, most or many of the former national guardsmen become contras.

The Somoza dictatorship wasnt the contras. While it is true some expat national guardsmen did join the Contras, the two arent the same entity.

Again, please check your references....the contras received no foreign military aid of any kind until 1982.

 

[MobBoss]

you think it's an fact becuase you say it is, that doesn't makes it a fact.

you failed mobby, as usual.

Wow, nice counter.

Bottom line, all I mentioned is factually true and findable on the net.

I dont see you providing much of a counter except for the 'well....YOUR wrong cause I say so, dang it' style....

Try looking up the Iran-Contra information, the Boland Amendment and other items that will confirm my facts for me.

Or, you can just continue to put your hands over your ears, stamp your feet and chant I am wrong....

Up to you.

 

[skadistic]

Is this a thread about the fact that Chavez is helping the FARC terrorists or is it about Iran/Contra?

Why does every thread turn into what the US did? At least it isn't about Iraq......yet.

Chevez is a state sponsor of terrorism.

 

[jroa99]

Those accusations are false. The files might have been authentic, but they have no proof that Chavez has funded FARC. We don't know what the "300" number refers to, but there's no millions mentioned, and in the last exchange of hostages, FARC gave 300 hostages. Read the links that I gave.

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/3386

I could question that interpretation and that comparison, since that's not exactly what happened "last time" (it was a small exchange of ostensibly sick prisoners, shortly followed by the additional unilateral release of a couple hundred soldiers, and the exact figure isn't "300" either, though I admit it's ostensibly possible to round it up/down).

Also, I admit the need for caution before making accusations, but Greg Palast doesn't take other documents into account when he makes his analysis, especially those that do not use the term "300", but instead the equivalent alternative, "dossier".

For example, a few of the documents as described in Wikipedia:

# December 23, 2007: mentions that, in reference to "300, later called dossier", "there are already formalities being advanced through instructions from the boss of the "cojo" (lame or cripple), which I (Iván) will comment on in another note. We will call the boss Ángel, and the "cojo", Ernesto".

The document also discusses the procedure for the release of two hostages in February 2008. It also refers to a request from President Sarkozy to Chávez, asking Marulanda to receive his emissary Noe, who FARC believes to be from French intelligence. Chávez asked for the liberation of Ingrid, to which FARC responded: "we (FARC) said that if we release her, we would run out of cards".

# January 14, 2008: a statement from "Jorge", saying that the "dossier" should be "directed collectively", with "tact, a cool head, ability and responsibility", also asking "who, where, how and when can we receive and keep the dollars?". The document also mentions the need to "determine what materials we need, amounts, prices, transports, routes, places for loading and unloading, sellers, buyers, business forms and technicians", adding that "if they donate merchandise to us it should be useful and adequate for guerrilla irregularity".

...

# February 8, 2008: a message from "Iván and Ricardo" to "Comrade Manuel" and the Secretariat, which informs of a meeting with "Ángel", who had read a letter from Manuel and would send a reply, adding that "he (Ángel) has already readied the first 50 and has a time frame for completing up to 200 during the year". The document mentions possible business deals regarding the commercialization of a petroleum quota, or the sale of gasoline in Colombia, as well as "taking from the dossier, the creation of a profitable investment company in Venezuela".

The document also mentions that President Chávez is willing to receive 47 guerrilla prisoners and 500 jailed guerrillas in his territory, and that he plans to create a sort of "Contadora Group", seeking to promote peace negotiations and the recognition of the FARC as a belligerent force. If they agreed to his proposal, Chávez said it would negate any negative impact from the February 4 "manipulated march" against the FARC, and he would be willing to promote "counter-marches" for peace and the exchange in several countries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Andean_diplomatic_crisis

Some of them, admittedly, were not among the first two or three read and released by the Colombian government in public, so it's possible that Palast didn't have the chance to see them (he only has three documents on his website, and his analysis doesn't include any others). Those additional documents, in Spanish, can be found here (among other places):

http://www.nxtbook.com/ml/PS/EdExtra2/

But by now, several others have been leaked or released as well, though that's still only a fraction of whatever is in those PCs.

It appears that the "dossier" is not entirely un-financial in nature, and that hostage-related matters can be discussed along with financial ones in the same letter(s), although that does not automatically mean that it was was 300 million in aid from Chavez or the Venezuelan government.

 

[Princeps]

The Somoza dictatorship wasnt the contras. While it is true some expat national guardsmen did join the Contras, the two arent the same entity.

They were effectively the same entity: the same faction of the same cruel and reactionary group, funded by the US. The national guard consisted of torturers and death squads: If the Washington wanted mass murder and economic destruction in Nicaragua, it could only turn to the thousands of "soldiers" whose training it had funded for decades. So, yeah, a large part -- not just some -- of the national guardsmen joined the Contras. In fact, initially, the Carter administration had called for the national guards to remain in place, because they were ineffect the US hold to the country, US mercenaries just like the contras, but this didn't down well with the Nicaraguans who called it "somozanism without somoza" or something along the lines.

 

[Neomega]

Yepp, merit has a lot more to do with geographical proximity than with whether or not the people in the country actually want your forces/aid there.

Maybe you didn't notice, but there has been a 30 year, 3-way civil war going on there. Funny way of saying they support the US backed government.

 

[Leonel]

Is this a thread about the fact that Chavez is helping the FARC terrorists or is it about Iran/Contra?

Why does every thread turn into what the US did? At least it isn't about Iraq......yet.

Chevez is a state sponsor of terrorism.

Because it's a quite common tactic by people to divert attention from the fact that they were wrong.

 

[Neomega]

How can you seriously have no problem with Chavez funding terrorists?

terrorists.

Thats a civil war. Real, bona-fied civil war, with real nasty business on both sides for 30 years.

Just cuz bush calls them a terrorist, doesn't make it so. Since the FARC focuses its attacks on military, the police, and government, they are not really terrorists...

(or narco-terrorists... or whatever other propaganda labels the US wants to slp on them)

because I thought funding terrorism was one thing we could all agree was, y'know, bad.

Like you, Anything that the US government says is bad, I am against.

 

[MobBoss]

They were effectively the same entity

Again...no, they werent. In fact, some of the founders of the Contras were also anti-Somozistas prior to the Sandanistas overthrowing Somoza.

the same faction of the same cruel and reactionary group, funded by the US.

Again, no. Actually, the Carter administration worked with, not against, the Sandanistas up until 1980. Reagan changed that in 1981.

The national guard consisted of torturers and death squads: If the Washington wanted mass murder and economic destruction in Nicaragua, it could only turn to the thousands of "soldiers" whose training it had funded for decades.

Again, what part of Carter working with the Sandanistas and Nicaragua actually receiving US aid until Jan 1981 did you not undersand?

 

[lovett]

terrorists.

Thats a civil war. Real, bona-fied civil war, with real nasty business on both sides for 30 years.

I assume you don't think the IRA were terrorists?

That you'd classify their actions during the troubles as somhow justified, on the grounds of 'civil war'?

As it goes, the IRA has more claim to this dubious justification then FARC. Saying that, it may be that 'Organised Criminals' is a better name for FARC then terrorists. Most of their action (Such as extortion, trafficking and ransom) seem more like the actions of a profit motivated criminal group rather then a politically motivated terrorist faction.

Nevertheless, there's quite an easy way to cut off their main source of funding. But the US would never brook it.