Interpol: FARC files real

[amadeus]

From, as always, the BBC:

Colombia did not fake Farc files

World police agency Interpol says Colombian authorities did not tamper with computers they allege are proof that Venezuela financed Farc rebels.

The hard-drives were purportedly seized after a raid on a rebel camp in Ecuador at the beginning of March.

But Interpol head Ronald Noble said the report did not seek to verify the validity of charges against Venezuela.

Venezuela and Ecuador have both dismissed the accusations as a US-backed smear campaign.

They say that any contacts with the Revolutionary Armed Forced of Colombia (Farc) were solely made as part of a humanitarian effort to free hostages held by the left-wing guerrillas.

Colombian forces attacked the Farc camp located just across the border in Ecuador on 1 March.

The computers they seized contain files which, according to Bogota, show that Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez was personally involved in financing and supplying arms to the rebels.

The raid provoked the worst regional tensions in recent years, with Ecuador breaking off diplomatic relations with Colombia.

So, how will the Chavistas respond to this one?

 

[Leonel]

Well uh you see the US empire bribed Interpol and made them dance like puppets and Hugo is a saint!

 

[skadistic]

Well uh you see the US empire bribed Interpol and made them dance like puppets and Hugo is a saint!

I had to be the CIA and Bush. Only Bush is smart enough to pull this off like when he pulled off 9-11.

 

[Neomega]

who cares?


......

Hugo has more business meddling in Colombia than the United states does.

 

[Virote_Considon]

They're obviously computers belonging to the US- who are really the ones funding FARC so that they can destabilize the otherwise perfectly stable region.

 

[Ansar]

They're obviously computers belonging to the US- who are really the ones funding FARC so that they cn destabilize the otherwise perfectly stable region.

And then go in with troops to bring Democracy?

 

[Virote_Considon]

And then go in with troops to bring Democracy?

Precisely

 

[jroa99]

Right now, Chavez is doing one hell of a job on TV, throwing personal and character attacks against Interpol's top officials, among others, without actually addressing the actual points of the report. Oh joy

He calls the whole thing a show, but he's not exactly that serious to begin with.

I don't think anyone has given the documents -or a very small of them, to be completely accurate- a fair interpretation, but the fact that they exist and haven't been manipulated provides with a real base for future investigations and eventual prosecutions if applicable. Too bad Chavez isn't willing or able to treat this kind of subject seriously.

 

[h4ppy]

who cares?


......

Hugo has more business meddling in Colombia than the United states does.

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.

 

[Elrohir]

who cares?


......

Hugo has more business meddling in Colombia than the United states does.

How can you seriously have no problem with Chavez funding terrorists? I must be silly, because I thought funding terrorism was one thing we could all agree was, y'know, bad.

 

[holy king]

How can you seriously have no problem with Chavez funding terrorists? I must be silly, because I thought funding terrorism was one thing we could all agree was, y'know, bad.

but everybody does it. the usa for example have been and are among the biggest funders of terrorists...

so is anyone really surprised or outraged by this?

 

[amadeus]

but everybody does it. the usa for example have been and are among the biggest funders of terrorists...

Indeed.

Bastards.

 

[Adamb0mb]

How can you seriously have no problem with Chavez funding terrorists? I must be silly, because I thought funding terrorism was one thing we could all agree was, y'know, bad.

Funny, I felt the same way about torture.

 

[Ecofarm]

Funny, I felt the same way about torture.

No, that's not the same. You have a screwy definition. Waterboarding involves no permenant damage, no significant amount of pain for any appreciable amount of time and no chance of death. Spare us your wishy-washy definitions.

Yes, everyone is against chopping off fingers (or heads) and burning people alive. Don't worry. The US is not setting up any Saddam-esque rape/murder dungeons.

Cue the "Oh, but what about ABU-GRAIBIE!11?" If you don't give up on that singular incident, you will find yourself harping with your kids having no idea WTH you are talking about, because we've already forgotten

Oh, oh, wait! We waterboarded 3 people! And we might do another!!! It's like the concentration camps! The cult intervention... Crystal Naught USA, right?

I'd rather be waterboarded 10 times than listen to one more crybaby call it torture. You know we've done it to 1000x more US military personel than enemies? Some people act as if we're pullin people's balls off; they're not even political hacks, they're clowns.

Do they have any idea what could happen to them in a Saddam court (god forbid they are women)? No. They think we should have left that country they way it was... everything was going smashingly after all.

 

[Adamb0mb]

Oh yeah Ecofarm, but what about ABU-GRAIB!11?!?!?!!

It's not just waterboarding though. It's also things like the Jack Bauer scenarios - If some guy buried your daughter in a whole wouldn't you torture him to find out where she is? Sure you would and that means the government should have a strict policy of how often we will torture enemy combatants.

Even more bothersome than the waterboarding is the waterboarding cheerleaders who seem to think waterboarding is a great start and perhaps only the beginning to a successful interogation.

no significant amount of pain for any appreciable amount of time

Not sure I like your definition as it seems to condone inducing short bursts of pain which sure sounds like torture.

 

[Ecofarm]

Oh yeah Ecofarm, but what about ABU-GRAIB!11?!?!?!!

It's not just waterboarding though. It's also things like the Jack Bauer scenarios

Is Jack a TV person? Look, I don't know what Kermit the Frog would do either (I might guess, by name, that perhaps surrenders but I don't know for sure).

What are you talking about?

Spoiler :

Yes, he is a TV person but I want to to consider the episode that I saw last night as legit evidence for a foundation of knowledge and understanding with regards to both hiding UFO evidence and the likelyhood of cheese-material being the bulk of moon "material".

Anyway I heard Jack doesn't pee or poop, ever. Sup wit dat?

Not sure I like your definition as it seems to condone inducing short bursts of pain which sure sounds like torture.

And if I smack a prisoner upside the head, is that torture? What if I grab his throat and he thinks for a second that he might die? War criminal?

 

[BasketCase]

Even more bothersome than the waterboarding is the waterboarding cheerleaders who seem to think waterboarding is a great start and perhaps only the beginning to a successful interogation.

Are you willing to let suspected terrorists out of Abu Ghirab so they can turn out to be terrorists after all, by committing actual suicide bombings?

The only reason I bring that up is because it actually happened.

Innocent people get screwed over pretty much no matter what you do. It's just a question of which ones.

 

[MobBoss]

Why would anyone be surprised that the files were indeed real?

Where is RedRalphWiggum to comment on this?

Where is nonconformist?

Or the other FARC/Chavez apologists that were claiming this was a lie?

Hmmmm?

 

[Adamb0mb]

Jack Bauer (played by Kiefer Sutherland) is the protagonist in the TV series 24.

Each season he has 24 hours to save America from a nefarious terrorist plot and in true outlaw spirit achieves his goal by any means necessary. Of course it's just TV and even entertaining but for some he seems to embody the true patriot willing to stop at nothing to save Americans.

The obvious problem being that on TV your always sure to torture the right person.

 

[Ecofarm]

The obvious problem being that on TV your always sure to torture the right person.

Or the problem that you are using TV (modern pop, nonetheless) to base an argument about real life. Here's where I use Britney Spears to prove a point about marriage:

Spoiler :

Ok, so she is an actual person, but not really.

The problem is left-wing TV. What some need is a good dose of right-wing video input. You know, where the hero breaks the rules but only with 66% audience approval (a super-majority for a super man). Real uber-stuff. Enough of this questionable-ethics hero crap.

If hillary is wonder woman, and obama is iron man (I'd call him steel man, but some might object and hey... he's farther left anyway)... who's mccain?