The death of Raul Reyes is having quite an effect on Colombia’s neighbors. Hugo Chávez is trying to portray it as an act of war since Colombia launched the attack into Ecuador. Rafael Correa, meanwhile, has recalled his ambassador, denounced it as a violation of sovereignty, and sent troops to the border, but his rhetoric has been more muted. Even as he criticized the way the attack was conducted, he emphasized that he condemns the FARC's actions and understood the gravity of the Colombian conflict. But we also need to see the effect of the captured laptops that purport to show the Correa government was negotiating with the FARC.
Of course, the Venezuelan government criticized the operation itself, saying it was a setback for any solution to the political conflict in Colombia, since the FARC had just released more hostages.* Chávez himself said the entire affair was all imposed by the United States, and lamented Reyes’s death, calling for a moment of silence for the “good revolutionary.” Lots and lots of references to lackeys, empires, etc. Finally, he sent troops and tanks to the border, and closed the Venezuelan embassy in Colombia.**
I don’t see Chávez’s bluster about war resonating with much of anyone, not even domestically, where I am willing to bet that most Venezuelans are perfectly happy if a violent guerrilla leader is killed (if anyone knows of a poll about Venezuelan attitudes toward the FARC or Colombia in general, please leave a link--Boz has some discussion of this). Does this saber-rattling matter to the average Venezuelan?
One obvious key to this conflict is the dialogue between Ecuador and Colombia. If they reach some sort of agreement, then the wind will be taken out of Chávez’s sails. However, this crisis is constantly evolving--in particular, we need to see how Correa continues to respond.
* Regardless of Chávez’s rhetoric, anyone who cares about the well-being of the hostages should at least ponder this logic.
**Apropos a previous post, we can safely say that Venezuela will not respond to Colombia’s suggestion of having talks…
82 comments:
if anyone knows of a poll about Venezuelan attitudes toward the FARC or Colombia in general...
Amazingly, in five years, I don't know if I've ever seen a poll of Venezuelan attitudes towards the FARC. However, I have seen polls out of Bolivia, Ecuador, Peru, Mexico and Brazil (and France). Whether or not the FARC are well known, they poll extremely poorly with very high unfavorables. They are unliked everywhere, and I can't imagine Venezuela is different.
In terms of Venezuelan attitudes towards Colombia, the polls I've seen show that Venezuelans (even Chavez supporters) want more pragmatic and friendly foreign relations with the US and Colombia. I need to stress, that does NOT mean that they approve of the US and Colombia (in fact, the US government has pretty high unfavorables and attitudes towards Colombia are fairly neutral or even slightly negative). It's simply that they want a less confrontational foreign policy, even with nations they don't particularly like. (Similar to how Americans now feel about Cuba.)
Anyone still denying Chavez is helping the FARC probably observed that moment of silence he called for Reyes.
Two short questions for the Correa government:
1) Why is the FARC in Ecuador? (Without getting into the fact that they've been there/here for years.)
2) What is the Correa government doing, or what will it do, to get the FARC out of Ecuador and keep them out?
Tambopaxi is right that this is a big domestic issue for Correa. While this is a Venezuelan foreign affairs issue, this strikes straight at Ecuador's domestic politics, where voters may actually care.
Ecuadorians want their sovereignty protected, and it was twice violated: by the FARC and by the Colombian military.
Correa needs to find the right tone of outrage against both in order to maintain his domestic credibility.
But also, Colombia must find the right tone of contrition for crossing the border.
In terms of its foreign relations, Colombia should find the right tone. In terms of Uribe's domestic politics, it probably doesn't matter.
Well, yes, but the crisis is international, so Colombia needs to give Correa something.
"Colombia needs to give Correa something."
Huh? Correa's response should have been congratulations, and promises of future cooperation in countering the FARC terrorists. Instead, he followed Chavez's lead. His actions corroborate the incriminating information found on Reyes' laptop.
What was found on the laptops, if true, would retroactively justify Uribe's decision not to give a heads up to Correa before the attack. Reyes is too tempting a target for Colombia, they hate him. Brings up the issue of whether Colombia had hacked FARC's communications and had those emails to begin with.
Uribe doesn't care or he would have called up Correa and did a joint "snatch and grab" instead of a bombing. Try the guy in court. He really shouldn't be making up stories about attacks from sleeping guerrillas.
1)Looks like FARC was hiding in the jungle.
2)I would kick all Colombians out of Ecuador.
Besides, I think Uribe's point was to end all negotiations which were getting too much world attention. He really really does not want Ingred back. Looks like he's not interested in taking people to trial either.
I wouldn't believe a thing that drug lord says. He's not credible.
Correa hould simply cut Colombia off.
Ah, I see that Greg the so-called maverick is aligning himself with the most retrograde and bellicose sectors of the Colombian oligarchy. Why am I not surprised?
Oh great, now Uribe has introduced Israeli-style leadership assassinations outside Colombian borders? What wonders will be next?
What a curious way this is for Uribe to respond to the recent hostage releases. Not exactly a man of peace, I guess.
And, yes, and let's leave it to Greg to tell us what the Venezuelan people want. Much of the Venezuelan people may very well dislike the FARC, but that tells us nothing of whether they deem it legitimate for Colombia to bomb Ecuadorian territory (just as Colombia has violated Venezuela's territorial integrity in past incursions).
Perhaps if Greg actually knew something about Venezuela, he would know that there are some long-standing rivalries between Colombia and Venezuela. There were even border skirmishes in the '80s. But I quite seriously doubt that Greg has any knowledge of this.
"Uribe doesn't care or he would have called up Correa and did a joint "snatch and grab" instead of a bombing."
The info on Reyes' laptop demonstrates why that wasn't an option. Correa looks to be every bit in alliance with FARC as Chavez.
"I wouldn't believe a thing that drug lord says. He's not credible."
We can certainly believe Reyes was hiding out in Ecuador and is now one dead terrorist. Hey Bosque, did you observe that moment of silence as well?
What a curious way this is for Uribe to respond to the recent hostage releases. Not exactly a man of peace
Actually it was a brilliant way to react….use the intelligence these hostages provided about their horrible experience, to orchestrate what to everyday Colombians is the biggest “golpe” to the FARC in 50 years of fighting. It was a genius move by Uribe, the Colombian Gov’t, and the military. To get one of the seven Secretariat members is just a huge achievement, when for 40+ years they were untouchables.
Hey, I was wondering when Delacour was going to chime in. Justin, still disputing Chavez's alliance with the FARC? Who is the propagandist now?
"I see that Greg the so-called maverick is aligning himself with the most retrograde and bellicose sectors of the Colombian oligarchy."
Predictably, our Dorm Room Revolutionary has aligned himself with the worst scum of humanity. This incident really clarifies where everyone stands on the issue. Chavez admitted to knowing Reyes, called him a "true revolutionary," and observed a moment of silence for the death of this filth.
"Oh great, now Uribe has introduced Israeli-style leadership assassinations outside Colombian borders?"
Straight from the mouth of his master Chavez.
"What a curious way this is for Uribe to respond to the recent hostage releases. Not exactly a man of peace, I guess."
Meanwhile, Chavez sends battalions to the Colombian border.
"Perhaps if Greg actually knew something about Venezuela, he would know that there are some long-standing rivalries between Colombia and Venezuela."
And that's relevant to Chavez hissy fit over something that happened in Ecuador..how?
Sounds like someone is spitting mad over the death of Reyes. Hey Justin, was he a "true revolutionary" as your master declared yesterday? How long was your moment of silence?
Reyes' laptop info demonstrates how these rats all swim in the same sewer: http://bellipotentdocs.blogspot.com
Chavez admitted to knowing Reyes
He admitted to having met Reyes in a conference in 1995. So fucking what? Andres Pastrana knew Reyes too and met with him on plenty of occasions. No doubt other Latin American statesmen have met him as well. The FARC used to do the diplomatic circuit, smart guy.
Meanwhile, Chavez sends battalions to the Colombian border.
Damn straight he does. If Uribe thinks he can bomb targets outside his borders, he's got another thing comin'. I wonder what the Brazilians have to say about this.
"So fucking what?"
I'd love Fatboy to give further elaboration on this conference. Hey Justin, how many tears were streaming down your cheeks when you heard Reyes was missing part of his head? You didn't answer my question how long your moment, between Chavez bootlicks, of silence was?
"If Uribe thinks he can bomb targets outside his borders, he's got another thing comin'."
The real question, and actually answered on Reyes laptop, is why the FARC thought they were safe in Ecuador.
Any decent human being would be relieved when high value murdering scum like Reyes are taken out. Reyes' death is a grievous blow to the savages who have brought so much misery to the Colombian people. Your outraged reactions, along with your Master Chavez, Ortega, and Correa, further corroborate what we already knew about you.
Now wait for further instructions from your Bolivarian masters, there in your dorm room.
Every American should be proud today that our tax dollars spent via Plan Colombia have been put to good use in the elimination of Reyes. Money well spent. Too bad the same can't be said for all money spent looking for Bin Laden. This is actually more impressive, as it should be more difficult to find a guy in a jungle versus a cave. But I digress.
Uribe played this brilliantly. Use the intelligence gathered almost certainly during the recent hostage exchanges to hit FARC at the top. What is Ecuador going to do, hit back? Uribe made a decision that they were not going to miss the opportunity to hit Reyes and that they will live with the consequences, which won't amount to much of anything.
Let's hope that this is the beginning of the end for the FARC.
Use the intelligence gathered almost certainly during the recent hostage exchanges to hit FARC at the top.
This is the most ridiculous Machiavellian logic I've heard yet. When the FARC releases hostages unilaterally, only the most cynical, most Machiavellian and most bellicose mind thinks that it's then wise for Uribe to use the intelligence gathered from the hostage dealings to take out the guy coordinating the hostage releases. And to do it in Ecuador? We got some sick puppies on this board. Uribe has set back the cause of peace and negotiations for years to come.
The French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner said it best: "It is bad news that the man we were talking to, with whom we had contacts, has been killed."
Set back the cause of peace? Let's not forget...the FARC are murderers. Why should anyone have any sympathy? How is the FARC working to establish any kind of peace? The FARC has over 500 innocent hostages in their control. You might want to take a look at domestic support within Colombia for Uribe and the sentiment towards FARC. Uribe is only carrying out the wishes of his people.
Uribe has set back the cause of peace and negotiations for years to come.
Well the conflict has been going on for 50 years, so really how far can he set it back?
After 2002 under Pastrana when he gave these "insurgents" a quarter of the country and still they walked away from negotiations, how much damage can Uribe cause when peace talks mean releasing 4 and kidnapping 6 a couple of days later? Some people make it sound like it's all Uribes fault, Like the FARC were a by product of his presidency and his right wing ideologies.....when in reality the FARC have been doing this for 50 years under left and right leaning presidents, it matters not who is living in “el Palacio de Nariño”.
"..only the most cynical, most Machiavellian and most bellicose mind thinks that it's then wise for Uribe to use the intelligence gathered from the hostage dealings to take out the guy coordinating the hostage releases."
The "guy coordinating the hostage releases" was a cold blooded killer who oversaw kidnappings of hostages. How disgustingly typical for Justin, all tucked in there in his dorm room, to attack Uribe for wiping out one of Justin's FARC heroes.
Frenchy:"It is bad news that the man we were talking to, with whom we had contacts, has been killed."
Yeah, all they seem to care about is getting Betancourt released, his rhetoric is unsurprising. Uribe is trying to win the war against a gang of murderers openly supported by Hugo Chavez.
Justin, you never answered the question how long you observed your moment of silence for the "true revolutionary" currently missing half his head.
Well, what do we have here? Looks like Uribe has some real problems on his hands. Chilean President Michelle Bachelet appears to be siding with Ecuador. And Brazil is about to put pressure on Uribe as well.
Oh, but Greg the milquetoast liberal, pseudo-maverick professor seems to be singing the Colombian oligarchy's tune. Very telling.
Mike,
Justin doesn't really worry about "the cause of peace." It's simply a rhetorical tool to bludgeon Uribe. Similiarly, he doesn't give a shit about the Colombian hostages, they're merely "bargaining chips," as he likes to tell us.
Justin's master Chavez does the same thing and he's just parroting it back. Justin overhears alot while down on his knees unzipping Chavez's fly.
Let's not forget...the FARC are murderers.
So is Uribe. The man probably has more skeletons in his closet than all other Latin American presidents combined. He's a killer of the highest order.
Why should anyone have any sympathy?
Well, I could say the same about Uribe, but all the moralizing propaganda isn't gonna spare one innocent soul's life. No, all the moralizing propaganda is designed to do just the opposite: to assist one group of killers against another, with a whole hell of a lot of innocent people being caught in the crossfire.
The murderers need to sit down at the table for the sake of the innocent, but one murderer (Uribe) wants none of it.
"So is Uribe."
Once again Justin links the pro-FARC Colombia Journal to make his "point." Somewhere, Garry Leech is sobbing over the death of his idol Raul Reyes, cherishing the memory of their time together.
And then he links allegations from former terrorist Gustavo Petro, as if anyone should give a shit what that turd has to say.
Finally, he gives us a WaPo link about unionist assasinations, nothing in there tying Uribe specifically to the assasinations, as Justin alleges. Nothing in there about the amazing decrease in unionist assasinations since Uribe took over in 2002. It is worth pondering, however, if the anti-FTA crowd will add Reyes'(who got his start in the unions) death to their unionist assasinations statistics.
"..to assist one group of killers against another, with a whole hell of a lot of innocent people being caught in the crossfire."
This is where Justin draws a moral equivalence between the FARC, almost universally hated by the Colombian people, and the democratically elected, and highly approved, govt of Colombia.
Justin,was Raul the "true revolutionary" your master said he was?
Did you observe the moment of silence?
When are you going to post some pictures of your trips to Colombia?
Looks like Brazil is taking a neutral position, placing pressure on all sides to talk rather than fight (which is the correct position).
Here's what Justin the Dorm Room Revolutionary had to say less than a week ago:
"So it's just false to suggest that Chavez has rhetorically supported the guerrillas' armed struggles."
Hugo Chavez yesterday: Held a moment of silence for Reyes and declared him a "true revolutionary." He also warned Uribe about doing the same thing in Venezuela, basically admitting he is protecting FARC terrorists in Venezuela.
And, of course, the Reyes' laptop keep on giving gifts. It's now been revealed Chavez recently gave $300 million to the FARC.
Justin, are you waiting on instructions from your Bolivarian masters on how to respond to all this?
Boz: Brazil's position, like Chile's, is not exactly "neutral" because both say--in so many words--that Colombia's cross-border attacks should stop. However, neither is putting any pressure on Colombia that I can discern, and both want multi-party talks, perhaps under the auspices of the OAS.
I guess if the issue is whether Colombia had the right to cross the border, you're right that Brazil and Chile are against it. I meant neutral in the sense that they aren't taking sides on the escalation of tensions since that military operation.
Just so I'm clear on this: Colombia is criticized for encroaching one mile into Ecuador's border, but as Reyes' laptop revealed, it's ok for Ecuador to harbor and support the guerillas who kidnap and murder Colombians.
This story obviously is moving constantly, but fortunately the FARC said this will not affect the hostages. Hopefully that is true.
Sorry, this link should work.
After the last hostage release, a FRC statement said that it was their final unilateral release until the Colombian government demilitarized an area for them.
Also worth noting, Semana reports that the Colombian government had the intelligence about Reyes' location earlier this week, but they waited for after the hostage release before they went after him.
And, of course, the Reyes' laptop keep on giving gifts. It's now been revealed Chavez recently gave $300 million to the FARC.
Been revealed?? We ain't seen shit. All we hear is what the Uribe government --notorious for its deceit-- wants us to hear. And who do we hear it from? Ah, yes, El Tiempo, the newspaper of Colombian Vice-President Santos. I couldn't give a rat's ass about what El Tiempo claims. "Colombian intelligence" is a euphemism for U.S. black ops propaganda.
Also worth noting, Semana reports that the Colombian government had the intelligence about Reyes' location earlier this week, but they waited for after the hostage release before they went after him.
Ah, yes, how "humanitarian" of Uribe and company to determine Reyes' location from his hostage communications and then --after the hostages are released-- launch an Israeli-style assassination strike against him... in Ecuador, no less. I'm just waiting for Greg and Boz to nominate Uribe for a Nobel peace prize.
neither is putting any pressure on Colombia that I can discern
For Bachelet to publicly call upon Colombia to give Ecuador and the rest of region an explanation is quite obviously a form of diplomatic pressure. Unfortunately, Greg is just too dense to figure this out.
This explains everything:
Oil sets fresh record at $103.95
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/
business/7275541.stm
One of the things that hasn't broken in the English language media are the photos from the laptops that have two Chileans posing with Raul Reyes in the jungle. One is from the "Chilean Communist Youth." I'll be interested in reading what the Chilean media have to say about that tomorrow.
A"ll we hear is what the Uribe government --notorious for its deceit-- wants us to hear."
Wrong. We hear your Lord and Master Chavez hailing Reyes as a "true revolutionary." We have Chavez warning Uribe not to launch similiar raids against FARC bigwigs holed up in Venezuela. We have an avalanche of evidence at this point where everybody stands in the conflict.
And we have you, a Dorm Room Revolutionary, dissembling, ignoring relevant facts, and lying on behalf of your filthy hero Hugo Chavez.
One of the things that hasn't broken in the English language media are the photos from the laptops that have two Chileans posing with Raul Reyes in the jungle. One is from the "Chilean Communist Youth."
Who gives a flying fuck? What political impact do Chilean Communist Youth have anywhere?
I can see why Boz didn't go into journalism.
Who gives a flying fuck?
What was on Reyes' laptop is newsworthy, particularly things that showed the international dealings of the FARC. I'm sure it will be news in Chile, even if you'd like to ignore it.
Well, yes, but the crisis is international, so Colombia needs to give Correa something.
Especially given that Uribe is largely isolated within Latin America and his ally in Washington has zero influence in the region.
I think, in the long term, if information on the laptop does link Chavez to the FARC -- and if that information is lent credibility by Chavez's own statements/behavior -- I can't imagine this will play well in the long term to Chavez's benefit.
But what is missing in this discussion is a crucial question: Is Colombia finally "winning" its war against the FARC? Have the tables turned definitively in the Colombian government's favor? That's certainly another dimension to this.
I think, in the long term, if information on the laptop does link Chavez to the FARC -- and if that information is lent credibility by Chavez's own statements/behavior -- I can't imagine this will play well in the long term to Chavez's benefit.
Ah, yes, the laptops. $300 million from big bad Hugo, and the FARC was looking for uranium too!
Now, how in the hell is the FARC going to do anything with uranium out in the friggin' jungle? Oh, right, the Iranians haven't figured out how to make a nuclear bomb yet, but Tirofijo sure as hell will, in between tending to the chickens and the pigs. Who needs scientists, anyway?
The Colombian police and the "U.S. experts" assisting them can manufacture whatever fake "intel" that will serve their immediate purposes. And the gullible --like Boz and Paul-- will take the bait hook, line and sinker.
But notice, of course, that the Colombian police haven't provided the journalists with squat in the way of evidence. AP's Toby Muse just reported this: "[Colombian National Police Chief] Naranjo didn't give any details on when, where or from whom the uranium was allegedly bought. He provided no proof of the payment and wouldn't release copies of the documents, which he said are 'tremendously revelatory' and are being examined with the help of U.S. experts."
Some folks around here need to learn some basic critical analytical skills.
Now, how in the hell is the FARC going to do anything with uranium out in the friggin' jungle?
Well, I for one need to see the laptops in neutral hands such as the OAS, before I pass judgment on them, however, if you're not familiar with the incident in Goiania with the abandoned x-ray machine, it doesn't take a great deal of radiation to cause some horrible damage.
I'm w/ Randinho on being somewhat skeptical about the laptop. But let's not start grasping at straws (a la JDC). One doesn't need to know how to build a thermonuclear device to pack a suitcase bomb w/ radioactive material. That just seems, well, obvious.
But at what point are we willing to concede that Chavez has ties (of sort or other) with FARC? The claims to the contrary seem less credible w/ every statement Chavez himself makes on their behalf. He's certainly going further than any EU countries ever have. It's one thing to suggest that the FARC be stricken from a terrorist list ... it's another to hail them as members of a broader "Bolivarian" revolutionary movement. That sounds more like an endorsement. I know that many EU member states have previously sought to extend recognition to Sinn Fein (the political arm of the IRA) w/o also lauding its leaders are fellow patriotic revolutionaries. That might be a subtle difference, but it's the kind of subtle difference that discourse analysis scholars thrive on.
So, what about the hostages now? Think the FARC will give up a few more anytime soon?
I do not. They are pretty much screwed again for a good while.
I believe Correa, getting more of the incident likely from the injured females left behind, referred to Uribe as a "criminal, mafioso, paramilitary" leading a "narco-government".
This does not sound like things will be progressing.
As I mentioned in the comments of my blog, the Colombian government seems almost eager to hand over evidence from the laptops to the OAS and other international organizations to verify the information in them.
At that point, I'm sure that people currently complaining that the Colombians are not releasing the evidence publicly will then complain that they are being unfair in how they release it or something like that.
Then at the OAS we'll see if it is an Adlai Stevenson moment or a Colin Powell moment.
"Some folks around here need to learn some basic critical analytical skills."
Notice how Justin, following the lead of his Lord and Master Chavez, dismisses the laptops as a bunch of lies in spite of the fact Chavez hailed Reyes as a hero and explicitly approves of the FARC's agenda. In spite of the fact Hugo warned Uribe not to attack FARC camps in Venezuela! And Ecuador's foreign minister has now admitted he was "in touch" with the FARC. This admission would seem to violate Colombia's sovereignty, no? "Basic critical and analytical skills" sure have a weird translation down there in Justin's bong smoke filled dorm room.
Justin, you still haven't told us if you consider Reyes to be a "true revolutionary" and how long was your moment of silence in between Chavez boot licks.
"But at what point are we willing to concede that Chavez has ties (of sort or other) with FARC? The claims to the contrary seem less credible w/ every statement Chavez himself makes on their behalf. He's certainly going further than any EU countries ever have."
Glad to see you are coming around on this, Mcentallas. The Dorm Room Revolutionary will keep on dissembling until there's no longer any wiggle room. At that point, he will change the subject to The Crimes of Uribe, or some such shit.
As I mentioned in the comments of my blog, the Colombian government seems almost eager to hand over evidence from the laptops to the OAS and other international organizations to verify the information in them.
Please... A team of black ops computer geeks can plant whatever they damn well please on those laptops. After the Colombian police and "U.S. experts" have tampered with the laptops, nobody serious is likely to see this as admissable "evidence."
The Colombian police just released 36 pages worth of documents found on the laptops. I think they are moving rather quickly considering how most governments (including the US) would have handled the information.
"A team of black ops computer geeks can plant whatever they damn well please on those laptops."
Hmm, I wonder if a team of black ops computer geeks can force Hugo to hail murdering scum Reyes as a "true revolutionary" and observe a moment of silence. I wonder if a team of black ops computer geeks can get Ecuador's foreign minister to admit they were dealing with Reyes(expecting Justin's denunciation of Ecuador for not respecting Colombia's sovereignty.)
Heck, I wonder if a team of black ops can get Justin to repeatedly link pro-FARC websites in order to make an ass of himself.
I think they are moving rather quickly considering how most governments (including the US) would have handled the information...
Oh, so if they hand it over quickly, that somehow means the "intel" is not doctored? For all we know, this shit was manufactured beforehand.
Nothing the Colombian government gives us tells us squat.
"Oh, so if they hand it over quickly, that somehow means the "intel" is not doctored?"
Keep clinging to that raft.
"Nothing the Colombian government gives us tells us squat."
Perhaps the Colombians should have the evidence sent to Justin's dorm room.
I've decided to end my comments with the following quote,at least for awhile:
"So it's just false to suggest that Chavez has rhetorically supported the guerrillas' armed struggles."
~Justin Delacour
Justin,
You have it pretty easy when all you do is dismiss and ignore everything you disagree with.
So, I say set the bar for yourself. What evidence would it take for you to believe Chavez has given the FARC money? What would you have to see or read? Who would you believe?
If Chavez said it himself, would you finally believe it?
What evidence would it take for you to believe Chavez has given the FARC money?
After the laptops has been tampered with by Colombian police and U.S. intelligence, it ceases to be admissable as "evidence." Unless you have some way of proving that the so-called "evidence" wasn't planted, you have no admissable evidence.
What evidence would it take for you to believe Chavez has given the FARC money? What would you have to see or read? Who would you believe?
Perhaps a live internet feed of a three way Lucky Pierre with Chavez, Mono Jojoy and Manuel Maralanda
Bottom line is that Uribe is desperate, so he's slinging as much mud as he can in hopes that something will stick. His bombing of Ecuadorian territory has now been denounced by seven Latin American countries (and I've yet to see one come out in his defense). So, naturally, when Uribe is up against the wall, he's gonna start throwing mud. He did the same thing during the Rodrigo Granda affair. For two weeks, the Colombian state lied about having bribed Venezuelan soldiers to kidnap Granda. Then, when the lies were no longer sustainable, the Colombian state finally copped to what it had done. The Colombian and U.S. states lie all the fucking time.
The Colombian and U.S. states lie all the fucking time.
I understand that you believe that. So let me ask again: What evidence would you accept that Chavez has funded the FARC? If the FARC came out and admitted it in a statement? If the Brazilian government said they had evidence? If one of Venezuela's cabinet members said it? What would it take? I'm letting you set the bar now.
His bombing of Ecuadorian territory has now been denounced by seven Latin American countries (and I've yet to see one come out in his defense).
Actually, make that nine Latin American countries that are on record having denounced Colombia's bombing of Ecuadorian territory: Chile, Peru, Bolivia, Nicaragua, Brazil, Costa Rica, Argentina, Ecuador and Venezuela.
I understand that you believe that.
No, Boz, it's an established fact that the Uribe government lies. Go back and read the reports on the Granda affair. Once again, they lied for two weeks about having bribed people to kidnap Rodrigo Granda from Caracas. They insisted for weeks that they nabbed Granda in a Colombia border town. We're talking about straight-up, bold-faced lies. And I'm sure that that's just the tip of the iceberg.
If so-called evidence is presented against the Chavez government, it would obviously have to be evaluated on the basis of its authenticity and admissability. We have no evidence that the laptop material is authentic; all we have is the Colombian government's word, which isn't worth squat, as the history has shown.
Ha! Don't you love how Justin's defense of Chavez aiding the FARC is another example of Chavez aiding the FARC?
Justin, how long was your moment of silence for Reyes?
--------------------------
"So it's just false to suggest that Chavez has rhetorically supported the guerrillas' armed struggles."
~Justin Delacour
Boz raises a good point that cuts to the heart of social science (and intellectual honesty): What kind of evidence is one willing to accept as discrediting one's own position?
Even taken as a hypothetical: I believe the US landed on the moon, despite all claims to the contrary. But there are specific types of evidence that would force me to reevaluate my peviously held beliefs.
If one is unwilling to accept evidence (even the hypothitical of "could there be evidence that you would be willing to accept"), then one is placing belief before evidence, rather than the other way around.
Under such conditions, as my critical theory professor used to say: "Rational discourse [i.e. a conversation between two people] becomes impossible."
It comes to mind that if the Colombian government wants to convince a broad international audience, then it should allow technical experts from say, Brazil and Argentina, to examine the stuff.
I have no idea what such an examination entails or--more importantly--how much "proof" can be determined.
I think the laptops are the real deal. Local tv had Colombian Chief of Police Naranjo laying out several pages of photos the Colombians say they found on the computers, which show FARC folks and high level officials in the GOE and GOV, "plus other countries". Naranjo said that the GOC has asked the OAS to bring their own folks to go through the computers as well.
I believe that there's a lot more that will come out in the near future, besides assertions of large cash transfers from VZ to the FARC, uranium, etc.
Re: Correa's grievances regarding violation of sovereignty, etc., my guess is that the GOC is hoping he'll go to the OAS so that they (the Colombians) can go at him on hosting the FARC on his own territory.
Finally, photos of FARC bodies and booty at attack site in northern Ecuador show Ecuadorian soldiers stacking lots of weapons found at the site, as well as commo equipment and other debris. For guys just hanging out on R&R in friendly territory, these guys were packing a lot of heat.
Probably the most interesting photo, though, is one showing Gustavo Larrea, Correa's best friend and Minister of Internal/External Security attending personally to one of the three wounded survivors at site, prior to her evacuation. It doesn't seem to have occurred to the GOE that their very clear sympathy with and support of, the FARC compromise their complaints of violated sovereignty as well as claimed neutrality in, and a desire to stay out of, the Colombian conflict....
All Miguel's pedantic lectures aside, nobody here has provided any rationale as to why anyone should take the Colombian government at its word or believe --on faith alone-- that the documents it claims to have pulled from the laptops are authentic.
At least Greg has the sense to say that it's all just speculation until something amounting to proof is presented.
Local tv had Colombian Chief of Police Naranjo laying out several pages of photos the Colombians say they found on the computers, which show FARC folks and high level officials in the GOE and GOV, "plus other countries".
I wonder if he kept those photos as some sort of blackmail, or if he was just sentimental about his meetings.
"At least Greg has the sense to say that it's all just speculation until something amounting to proof is presented."
Ecuador has already admitted they were talking to the FARC, validating at least one of the allegations.
Your master Chavez is getting schooled by Uribe, Justin.
--------------------
"So it's just false to suggest that Chavez has rhetorically supported the guerrillas' armed struggles."
~Justin Delacour
Ecuador has already admitted they were talking to the FARC
And Ecuador also said Colombia already knew about that, independently of the supposed laptops. The Ecuadorians were trying to help broker another hostage release. Heaven forbid. Can't have that. Anything that might place international pressure on Uribe to negotiate must be halted. Hence, the Israeli-style leadership assassination on Ecuadorian territory.
Justin:
I agree w/ Greg that we don't know what's on the laptop and it's OK to be skeptical. But Boz's question still holds: What evidence would you be willing to accept? That's not asking for you to accept evidence, that's simply asking for the basic question of academic honesty: Under what conditions would you admit that you were wrong? (In other words, are your positions falsifiable?)
That's not asking for you to accept evidence
We haven't seen any evidence, Miguel. That's the point. Your idea of "evidence" is equivalent to Judith Miller quoting anonymous U.S. officials who claim to have had evidence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. For people like you and Boz, any old piece of propaganda that serves your purposes constitutes "evidence." This is certainly not a social scientific standard.
You see, courts of law set up basic standards for what constitutes admissable evidence in these sorts of cases. Having interested parties tamper with the "evidence" before it is subjected to a legal investigation generally renders the "evidence" inadmissable in a court of law (for obvious reasons).
No, Justin. Don't muddy the waters. I'm not suggesting that anything presented so far counts as evidence. Let's assume that we can dismiss all the evidence so far presented. Let's concede that point to you. Boz's question still stands: What kind of evidence, if it existed, would convince you to accept that Chavez does support the FARC?
Again, please read the above carefully. It's possible that no such evidence exists. But if it did exist, what would it look like? Many are wondering why you dismiss evidence so readily. So what kind of evidence would meet your standards? It's really a very simple question. And it doesn't require you to accept any previously presented evidence at all.
Again, please read the above carefully.
I read it carefully. You're looking for some a priori standard of what constitutes legitimate evidence and what doesn't. I already told you the a priori standard: that the evidence be admissable according to basic legal standards (i.e. that it not be tampered with by interested parties) and that its authenticity be established.
Many are wondering why you dismiss evidence so readily.
Once again, Miguel, there hasn't been any evidence presented as defined by any court. All we have is hearsay from interested parties about the so-called evidence.
As for the possibility that there could have been some kind of evidence on the supposed laptops, I don't dismiss that possibility. Unlike you, however, I understand how propaganda works. To speculate on the basis of non-evidence is to play the game of the propagandists. You do that very well.
Your definition if tautological and essentially: "Evidence is accepted evidence." You still haven't said what kinds of things you would accept. You haven't yet operationalized a null hypothesis.
"Unlike you, however, I understand how propaganda works."
Ha! I'll say. He gets plenty of it while at his master's feet.
It sure is fun to watch Justin squirm.
------------------------------
So it's just false to suggest that Chavez has rhetorically supported the guerrillas' armed struggles."
~Justin Delacour
We have no a priori standard for what kinds of things one should accept as evidence in any given case. That depends upon the case. So how bout' this? You tell me the kinds of things you would consider admissable as evidence in this case, and I'll tell you whether or not I concur.
Justin:
OK. I'll bite. Let's see ...
If independently verified documents (memos, tapes, etc) showed that Uribe ordered the assault specifically to foul up negotiations, I would accept that as evidence for Uribe's nefarious intentions.
Similarly, if independent verification (e.g. OAS, UN, etc) verifies that the laptop in question shows that Chavez gave $300 million to the FARC, then I would accept the claim that Venezuela's government gave money to the FARC. If so, then I would accept that Venezuela has "supported' the FARC.
Notice that both statements could be simultaneously true. That is, Chavez could support the FARC *and* Uribe could be deliberately sabotaging hostage releases. In other words, it's possible that both individuals are doing bad things.
if independent verification (e.g. OAS, UN, etc) verifies that the laptop in question shows that Chavez gave $300 million to the FARC, then I would accept the claim that Venezuela's government gave money to the FARC. If so, then I would accept that Venezuela has "supported' the FARC.
It looks to be a mute point. Not even the lap-dog U.S. press can find any evidence in the documents of a payment by Chavez to the FARC.
But beyond that, I don't consider this to be admissable evidence because it's been tampered with by interested parties. Unless an international body has some way of verifying what information is authentic, the evidence-tampering should render this inadmissable.
Post a Comment