[omegaword]

I personally support the FARC, and i want to start a debate (probably already done but i would like to start it again). there are various views on the FARC, i have mine and i'd like to hear yours. you put down a point and ill see if i or a like minded individual cant rebuff. so here we go. ahem.
the Colombian government is historically corrupt, and appears to be continuing to be so. para-military thugs, rich cocaine traffickers, and more, much of which is related to people in the government, is hurting the people of Colombia. the FARC, although they have had indiscretions, are in my opinion, the better side. fire away

[Social_Critic]

Omega, I used to live in Venezuela, so I had to deal with the FARC, in the sense that I had to spend time and energy making sure I didn't get kidnapped and sold to them. The FARC is well known to torture prisoners, cut their body parts off to show they mean business, and they'll keep you in very inhumane conditions for years if they think your family or somebody out there will cough up some money.

I don't think the fact that they are terrorists, set off bombs in cities and towns make them particularly evil, as evil doers go. But the kidnappng part really did worry me. And you know how it is, being non-violent like I am, it kinda stressed me because sometimes I had this urge to grab a rifle with a night vision scope and go pop their pumpkins from 500 meters out. Not a nice thought, and I have to confess I'm truly ashamed that I used to spend a lot of time thinking about it.

Anyway, today I'm outta there, like they say, so the FARC can go to hell as far as I'm concerned, you won't have me arguing over the politics, because to me the FARC just became too personal an issue. However, I wouldn't mind if the Colombian Army drops a laser guided bomb on Timoshenko as he hides in Venezuelan territory, and that's it. Or, if somebody could do me a favor, send me his jaw and I'll put it on a shelf.

[Dagoth Ur]

I support FARC from a completely legal principaled standpoint but I know nothing of their theoretical arguments or their level of education.

[Social_Critic]

Well, I suppose from a legal standpoint it would be wrong for me to put Timoshenko's jaw on a shelf. But it sure would be an interesting conversation piece, wouldn't it?

From a purely legal standpoint, kidnapping people for ransom and torturing them is a nono. This makes the FARC a criminal outfit, and it makes FARC supporters into something similar to the guy who drives the getaway car after a car robbery. You know, like that dude in the movie with Al Pacino and Robert Deniro, where they go rob a bank and they botch it, they all get shot and so on.

But you know, I've come to see all sorts of people in my life. I've been to some really strange places, seen terrible things, so to me it's not surprising to see people support the FARC. I suppose there are people who support cannibalism and they wear Gucci handbags. This world is full of everything.

[Dagoth Ur]

You misunderstand. I have no qualms with the FARC's tactics or whether the bourgeoisie calls them illegal. Revolution is illegal. I'm talking about my legal level of support for the FARC.

[omegaword]

Well, I suppose from a legal standpoint it would be wrong for me to put Timoshenko's jaw on a shelf. But it sure would be an interesting conversation piece, wouldn't it?

From a purely legal standpoint, kidnapping people for ransom and torturing them is a nono. This makes the FARC a criminal outfit, and it makes FARC supporters into something similar to the guy who drives the getaway car after a car robbery. You know, like that dude in the movie with Al Pacino and Robert Deniro, where they go rob a bank and they botch it, they all get shot and so on.

But you know, I've come to see all sorts of people in my life. I've been to some really strange places, seen terrible things, so to me it's not surprising to see people support the FARC. I suppose there are people who support cannibalism and they wear Gucci handbags. This world is full of everything.

Well first, the Farc have no said they intend to stop the kidnapping. But do you realize that the government is worse? They also kidnaped people, their citizens not foreigners, and they killed most of them. They tricked the farc into creating a legal party, and then had them killed. And in a very cold war style move, the us has and is supporting the government in these things. So in my mind, they do what they must.

[Social_Critic]

I guess you think surrender is not an option for the FARC, but it is. Thousands of them have already surrendered and live civilian lives. The government is pretty sharp about this issue, because they know the best way to defeat them is to weaken their resolve. And because this is working quite well, the FARC is down to less than half the numbers they had when Pastrana was running Colombia.

This is also the reason why the FARC has lost so many leaders, and why the new leader, Timoshenko, is now hiding in Venezuela. And of course this is the reason why Uribe is goading Santos to go bomb Timoshenko with a laser bomb. Santos, on the other hand, is waiting for Chavez to die and for Venezuela to fall into chaos before they drop the big one on Timmy. The guy is sloppy and they got a pretty good idea where he is.

Regarding the comments by the guy who said he didn't care if the FARC did horrible things, I am fully aware people such as you exist - or troll the net making believe they are the people who exist in such mental states.

This is the reason why I say I wouldn't mind having Timoshenko's jaw sitting on a shelf. Here's looking back at you.

[omegaword]

I guess you think surrender is not an option for the FARC, but it is. Thousands of them have already surrendered and live civilian lives. The government is pretty sharp about this issue, because they know the best way to defeat them is to weaken their resolve. And because this is working quite well, the FARC is down to less than half the numbers they had when Pastrana was running Colombia.

This is also the reason why the FARC has lost so many leaders, and why the new leader, Timoshenko, is now hiding in Venezuela. And of course this is the reason why Uribe is goading Santos to go bomb Timoshenko with a laser bomb. Santos, on the other hand, is waiting for Chavez to die and for Venezuela to fall into chaos before they drop the big one on Timmy. The guy is sloppy and they got a pretty good idea where he is.

Regarding the comments by the guy who said he didn't care if the FARC did horrible things, I am fully aware people such as you exist - or troll the net making believe they are the people who exist in such mental states.

This is the reason why I say I wouldn't mind having Timoshenko's jaw sitting on a shelf. Here's looking back at you.

we'll see. perhaps that is the government's best tactic, but i don't think that that alone can work. the only way to really get rid of the FARC is to give into some of their demands. that is in my opinion best case scenario.

[KlassWar]

I support FARC: They're a more-or-less Marxist guerrilla waging a revolutionary war against a right-wing government, therefore they deserve support.

There is nothing wrong with holding pigs, reactionaries and rich fucks hostage: Whatever is done to that kind of people is by definition fair game.

[Social_Critic]

Klass War, so I take it you think it's OK to put an iron collar on my neck and keep me chained to the wall in a hut in a Colombian jungle for 5 years merely because I may have the money to pay off a FARC ransom?

You do have a lot of anger in you, have you considered a visit to a mental health facility?

[omegaword]

I support FARC: They're a more-or-less Marxist guerrilla waging a revolutionary war against a right-wing government, therefore they deserve support.

There is nothing wrong with holding pigs, reactionaries and rich fucks hostage: Whatever is done to that kind of people is by definition fair game.

i generally agree, although i believe that they should only take prisoners of war. a tourist does not deserve to be tortured, no one does. however i do think that if the target is rich than respectful ransom is fair. i also support the fight against the government, as right wing as it is.

[KlassWar]

Klass War, so I take it you think it's OK to put an iron collar on my neck and keep me chained to the wall in a hut in a Colombian jungle for 5 years merely because I may have the money to pay off a FARC ransom?

You do have a lot of anger in you, have you considered a visit to a mental health facility?

If you can pay the ransom, why the fuck would they keep you in the jungle for five years? Hostages are usually released after ransom is paid.

Sure, it's not a nice way to acquire funds (civil wars are rarely nice), but it's an effective way of seizing the riches of class enemies and putting them to good use.

[Social_Critic]

Klass war, very often they kidnap people who do not have the money to pay the ransom. So they are held until the family saves the money. In my case, I told my family not to pay (i'm older so I'm disposable). The key of course is not to pay off, and to starve them of funds, which is what has been happening. They have lost a lot of territory, and are now using Venezuela as a refuge in incressing numbers because they can't take the pressure in many areas within Colombia.

Areas which before were ruled by the FARC are pacified, and FARC leaders are even being handed in by their own fighters, who appear out of the jungle carrying the hands they cut off from the guys they killed. This is so they can collect the rewards after the hands are fingerprinted, of course.

I think that, in about 5 years, you will have to find some other group of murderers to support and troll for.

[CynicalOptimist]

I think the FARC aptly demonstrate both the tactical dead-end that is terrorism and the failings of guerilla warfare as a method of revolutionary socialist politics.

Terrorist means (such as kidnappings) are traditionally justified by appeals to ends. I have no problem with 'the ends justify the means' type reasoning, in fact I take it as given, but in reality all these methods have achieved is to turn potential sympathisers against them. Where the means are counterproductive they are shown to be unjustified by the ends.

Although not without some support among the campesinos in parts of the countryside, the FARC have been fighting a guerilla war in the jungles and the hills for decades. During that time they have become entirely politically detached from Colombia's urban working class. The workers in Bogota have rallied against the FARC, have no shared political organisation with them and would find the notion that FARC represents their interests absurd.

As one of the worst countries in the world to try to organise a union, with organised violence against labour activists, Colombia is in great need of a genuine militant political force which can stand up to paramilitary violence.

[Stranger]

Social_Critic, what's your opinion on this news article? Is it just a PR stunt?

[omegaword]

I think the FARC aptly demonstrate both the tactical dead-end that is terrorism and the failings of guerilla warfare as a method of revolutionary socialist politics.

Terrorist means (such as kidnappings) are traditionally justified by appeals to ends. I have no problem with 'the ends justify the means' type reasoning, in fact I take it as given, but in reality all these methods have achieved is to turn potential sympathisers against them. Where the means are counterproductive they are shown to be unjustified by the ends.

Although not without some support among the campesinos in parts of the countryside, the FARC have been fighting a guerilla war in the jungles and the hills for decades. During that time they have become entirely politically detached from Colombia's urban working class. The workers in Bogota have rallied against the FARC, have no shared political organisation with them and would find the notion that FARC represents their interests absurd.

As one of the worst countries in the world to try to organise a union, with organised violence against labour activists, Colombia is in great need of a genuine militant political force which can stand up to paramilitary violence.

that is originally what FARC was, before it was FARC. the organization is a descendant of the defensive militia of the Colombian worker communes. then the US came in and helped the government disperse them. the militia fled into the jungles and that's where the FARC come from. the truth is that the FARC was drawn to brutal tactics by the brutal tactics used on them. i would like to see them become a legitimate fighting force, but the more serious and illegitimate they became the further the US would go to put them down.

[Social_Critic]

Stranger, sounds like a propaganda move. First let's recall he wasn't a target - he was shot during an attack on army units. Second, he's French. Third, he was cured of the bullet wound and then released. if you want to put up one story about being well treated, I can put one too. And many more where they get tortured.

[Mazhi]

The FARC are basically some sort of mafia with reprehensible practices, especially when it comes to women.

The women who are members there are constantly forced to please the men sexually, under the pretense that it's their "revolutionary duty". If they refuse, it doesn't bode well for them, after all, that makes them "counterrevolutionaries".