|
Homework Explainer posted:hrw is one of the many ngos which act as functionaries of the state department, it's no surprise they follow the west's line on practically every foreign conflict Their constant condemnation of both Israel and the United States definitely confirms their status as US shills
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 06:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 04:28 |
|
|
Homework Explainer posted:hrw is one of the many ngos which act as functionaries of the state department, it's no surprise they follow the west's line on practically every foreign conflict The State Department is pro-accord in their public statements. So either there isn't a "line," or HRW is more independent than you think.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 06:23
|
|
|
The acting as functionaries of the state department bit can be quite literal. Tom Malinowski defended the CIA rendition program when he was head of advocacy at HRW. Shortly after that he left HRW to become assistant secretary of state. In any case, this thread has been good because it has avoided the cheerleading of the venezuela thread. Can we just ignore the person who clearly has no argument besides "my side your side" oversimplifications?
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 06:29
|
|
|
Hi Non Serviam! Just so we're clear:Non Serviam posted:Here's my explanation: Some goons love the idea of the lefty revolutionary. Because of this, giving FARCs a pass is simply natural. The fact that they were rapists, murderers, torturers, kidnappers, and that they employed child soldiers won't get in the way of that. Nobody in this thread has defended FARC. Carry on 
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 09:37
|
|
|
Non Serviam posted:The ANC aimed to stop Aparthetid; the FARCS aimed to impose a totalitarian Marxist system on Colombia. Actually, the ANC aimed to impose a tyrannical black racist system on South Africa and destroy the future of its white children. It's frankly disgusting they're allowed anywhere near power.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 09:46
|
|
|
Can anyone who knows talk about the history of FARC? Why did they resort to violence instead of forming a political party? Very curious.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 15:19
|
|
|
Non Serviam posted:Their constant condemnation of both Israel and the United States definitely confirms their status as US shills Your point in arguing against the peace deal seems to be rooted in desiring Justice, which is coming off as punishment for crimes committed. The status quo is that one side (the FARC) is being threatened with this, the worst perpetrators are already escaping, and the only way the FARC currently have to escape their punishment is to continue the war and not submit to the government forces. This perpetuates misery, suffering and death. Would you disagree? I don't think the status quo is a net positive for the people of Columbia generally and especially for those in the conflict zone (unsurprisingly they voted largely for peace). You don't seem big on pragmatism as a moral compass so let's go with the ideal of justice for all criminals. The only route I can see to that would be a new power (maybe a newly elected party) that rose to power on the promise of finding and prosecuting those on both sides. Basically apprehending the leaders on both sides responsible for these crimes. Realistically no group in Columbia is going to have this level of power, as a threat to entrenched power they'd be crushed/assassinated at best. At worst they would be hugely successful and plunge the country into a newly energised civil war with 3 factions as the old guard military and right wing militias sought to prevent their own capture and punishment. So realistically you're looking for foreign intervention that can impose the needed punishment on those responsible, right and left wing alike. If you oppose the peace process because it means bad people will escape punishment and the continuation of strife and misery (and continuing cycle of violence leading to more crimes) isn't a reason to change your mind, I don't see how you could argue against a full US intervention aimed at capturing and punishing government, military and FARC leaders who have engaged in these crimes. I mean it would be a shitshow and probably increase casualties and the damage to Columbia by an order of magnitude but we're already coming from a position where peace and prosperity shouldn't outweigh punishment.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 15:33
|
|
|
tekz posted:Can anyone who knows talk about the history of FARC? Why did they resort to violence instead of forming a political party? Very curious. They're then Revolutionary ARMED FORCES of Colombia. Democracy wasn't in their plans
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 15:33
|
|
|
Also the attempt at political involvement by the left (UP) was largely met with assassination and murder. Actors on both sides have never wanted a peaceful resolution because peace requires sacrificing power or making oneself vulnerable. Apartheid would never have ended if criminal trials for the ANC had been a requirement, likewise Northern Ireland would still probably see bombings and killings if all Republican leaders had been required to stand trial rather than being involved. Non Serviam is arguing from the view that one side is illegitimate (while not really questioning the legitimacy of the other side's power) and goes from there. Justice, peace, etc. I don't believe are going to sway him because he's starting from the position that the FARC are bloodthirsty authoritarians and thus those they are fighting against are in the right. Take that view and compromise can't happen, more peasants must be sacrificed on the altar of punishing those perfidious leftists.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 15:56
|
|
|
tekz posted:Can anyone who knows talk about the history of FARC? Why did they resort to violence instead of forming a political party? Very curious. They did. Then their political workers were all killed. (That was UP, in the 80s and 90s. At the time of their founding they had connections to the Colombian Communist Party.) Imagine a Northern Ireland in which all members of Sinn Fein were killed by Orange militias and the British government. IRA disarmament would have been a tough sell. efb
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 16:01
|
|
|
Non Serviam posted:They're then Revolutionary ARMED FORCES of Colombia. Democracy wasn't in their plans Yeah, it's all in the name. Just like you know DPRK is a democracy and the NAZI party was socialist.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 16:14
|
|
|
tekz posted:Can anyone who knows talk about the history of FARC? Why did they resort to violence instead of forming a political party? Very curious. Short history is that during the civil war between the liberals and conservatives in the 40s and 50s, peasant villages would form self defense groups. When the conservatives and liberals ended the war and formed power sharing bloc, they sent in the army to clear out these self defense groups. FARC started when one of these self defense groups, in Marquetalia, was crushed by the government. Whatever people's opinions of FARC and their actions, it is pretty incontrovertible that the precursors to FARC were small self defense groups formed by peasants during the civil war to protect their villages from both sides. Which is why, once again, people should just ignore the troll with 0 history knowledge who seems to just want to cheerlead here.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 18:35
|
|
|
Magrov posted:Yeah, it's all in the name. Just like you know DPRK is a democracy and the NAZI party was socialist. Are you disputing that they were an armed force? Edit. And to address the strawman again. I think paramilitary and government people who committed war crimes should be tried and punished, regardless of their ideology. Having said all of that, Marxism is poison and it's inherently against liberty and human rights. Edit 2. And nazis were national socialist, which isn't the same as socialism. At least get the whole name right. Would you have supported a post war tribunal of community service for Those war criminals as well? Redrum and Coke fucked around with this message at 18:46 on Oct 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 18:41
|
|
|
Non Serviam posted:Are you disputing that they were an armed force? oh my god
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 18:52
|
|
|
Gee, I wonder how he got his red text.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 18:56
|
|
|
Tacky-rear end Rococco posted:Gee, I wonder how he got his red text. By saying that nazis were war criminals? The mark of a racist!
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 19:39
|
|
|
I never cared that much about marxism but I'll say that the sudden DEEP FEAR that south american right wingers seem to have of it only made me more interested in learning more hmm yes mr marx, poison my mind with ideas that capitalism doesn't serve the common man, oooooh I'm corrupted now 
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 19:39
|
|
|
Symbolic Butt posted:I never cared that much about marxism but I'll say that the sudden DEEP FEAR that south american right wingers seem to have of it only made me more interested in learning more I'm not afraid of it. It never succeeded and it never will. It's just shameful to see people whitewashing the destruction, chaos, and death that it brought around the world. If you care about human rights, then opposing fascism comes with opposing Marxism. Two systems based on oppression.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 19:48
|
|
|
Non Serviam posted:I'm not afraid of it. It never succeeded and it never will. It's just shameful to see people whitewashing the destruction, chaos, and death that it brought around the world. marxism isn't a "system" its a broad school of theory, methodology and material analysis. good work, though: reading your recriminations has only made me more confident in my own marxism
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 19:51
|
|
|
It does seem like your position is being clouded by your desire to believe that FARC is getting a "free pass" from the thread on account of being Marxist, when in fact the prevailing position is that the peace deal itself was a net good, and the "NO" vote was less a triumph of justice against impunity and more of Uribe's hissyfit managing to turn a "do you want this peace deal y/n" vote into a "do you think FARC is cool and cute y/n".
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 19:55
|
|
|
Real justice in Colombia would be Uribe and the leaderships of farc and the rightwing paramilitaries being lobotomies at once in public fallowed by land reform. But if that cannot be achieved peace is fine.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 20:34
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Real justice in Colombia would be Uribe and the leaderships of farc and the rightwing paramilitaries being lobotomies at once in public fallowed by land reform. But if that cannot be achieved peace is fine. I read that in a Trump voice, and it made me giggle.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 20:44
|
|
|
Non Serviam posted:I'm not afraid of it. It never succeeded and it never will. It's just shameful to see people whitewashing the destruction, chaos, and death that it brought around the world. Ok, I'm not trying to call you out here because the only thing I know about colombian right wing is how similar they sound in tone to brazilians when complaining about marxism. But here's my context as a brazilian. The PT government was... A moderate left-wing government with some social programs and stuff. But suddenly there was this whole delusional sentiment where PT is a marxist devil and they were going to start a totalitarian government ANY TIME NOW WE NEED TO ACT. There's no other reasonable way to see it other than fringe politics. PT stayed in power for more than 10 years and they never really took any measures to emulate the soviet union's one-party state thing. I know it's very different with the FARC, and you have every right to not feel any love towards them but I can't help but feel the same out of place anti-communist propaganda.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 20:54
|
|
|
Non Serviam posted:The ANC aimed to stop Aparthetid; the FARCS aimed to impose a totalitarian Marxist system on Colombia. A vote against peace is a vote for the continuation of human rights violations. No one will be brought to justice either way, the only difference is that more people will commit more atrocities as a result of the vote. That seems to be what you don't get - you're arguing that anyone responsible for violations should be tried and convicted to explain why you think we should allow both sides to continue their violations unless one side (and only one side) agrees to be punished first. You are literally arguing that human rights violations are a good thing and it's worth letting them happen so long as we don't let a small subset of bad guys "get away with it".
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 21:04
|
|
|
That small subset of bad guys will still be serving time, though, right?
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 23:35
|
|
|
R. Mute posted:That small subset of bad guys will still be serving time, though, right? For war crimes they will. For political crimes they will be allowed to have a role in politics, clear land mines or do other charitable acts as reparations for those crimes, providing they admit to them and there's a general 'clearing of the air' with the guilty on both sides taking responsibility for the crime. Obviously this is a travesty that must not stand, the Columbian rural population must continue to sacrifice their livelihoods and lives until the
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 08:51
|
|
|
MrNemo posted:For war crimes they will. For political crimes they will be allowed to have a role in politics, clear land mines or do other charitable acts as reparations for those crimes, providing they admit to them and there's a general 'clearing of the air' with the guilty on both sides taking responsibility for the crime. You keep responding as if my dislike of the left means I want the right wing militias to go unpunished. Why are you doing that?
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 13:29
|
|
|
Because you are currently arguing that the realistic peace deal that was offered was unacceptable since it meant that FARC members would go unpunished. At best you are arguing against a real and concrete chance at an end to the conflict in favour of an impossible alternative deal that would see all guilty parties justly punished. In practical terms that is arguing for the status quo to continue and that status quo involves right wing militias and pro-government criminals (political and war criminals) escaping punishment. People in this thread aren't arguing the peace deal was a good thing because it meant the FARC escaped jail sentences for political crimes, it was because it represented a real chance for the conflict to end and the worst of the crimes committed against civilians to end. Serious question: Can you see or imagine a realistic scenario that would produce better results than this for the majority of the Columbian population?
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 13:50
|
|
|
MrNemo posted:For war crimes they will. For political crimes they will be allowed to have a role in politics, clear land mines or do other charitable acts as reparations for those crimes, providing they admit to them and there's a general 'clearing of the air' with the guilty on both sides taking responsibility for the crime. For political crimes it was going to a broad amnesty. No prosecutions. The restorative justice measures (land mine clearing, infrastructure construction etc) were the noncustodial sanctions proposed for those who confessed to war crimes/crimes against humanity and cooperated fully with the transitional justice body - prison sentences where reserved only for those convicted of war crimes who did not cooperate/confess
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 14:01
|
|
|
I stand corrected, didn't realise there were no jail sentences for war crimes. I still stick by that deal being better than the status quo.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 14:09
|
|
|
Non Serviam posted:You keep responding as if my dislike of the left means I want the right wing militias to go unpunished. Why are you doing that? Because you're arguing for the scenario where the right wing militias are not only going unpunished but the war continues so the war criminals on the right are in fact are allowed to continue committing war crimes while continuing to go unpunished? You don't seem to understand what you're actually arguing for by saying that turning down the peace deal was the right thing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 15:44
|
|
|
Keep in mind that it was unlikely that the deal's provisions re: war crimes would fly by the Interamerican Human RIghts Court, though it would have likely been a long proccess of overturning it on a case-by-case basis.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 18:17
|
|
|
MrNemo posted:Because you are currently arguing that the realistic peace deal that was offered was unacceptable since it meant that FARC members would go unpunished. At best you are arguing against a real and concrete chance at an end to the conflict in favour of an impossible alternative deal that would see all guilty parties justly punished. In practical terms that is arguing for the status quo to continue and that status quo involves right wing militias and pro-government criminals (political and war criminals) escaping punishment. No, I argued that it's unacceptable because nobody will be punished. You're even proving your ignorance since, as somebody already pointed out there will be no jail time for anyone. The farc didn't commit political crimes. They committed war crimes, let's be clear on things here. And yes, I think the farc and any remaining paramilitaries need to surrender their weapons as the first step towards peace. A government shouldn't negotiate with a domestic terrorist organization.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 18:40
|
|
|
Non Serviam posted:No, I argued that it's unacceptable because nobody will be punished. Amnesty was specifically tied to demobilization and disarmament. Political crime covers the general "taking up arms against state agents" thing that's kind of the whole deal with internal conflicts, pursuing prosecution for the act of rebelling is just going to be a nonstarter. Demanding disarmament before negotiation is a classic stalling tactic and not conducive to viable peace kustomkarkommando fucked around with this message at 18:48 on Oct 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 18:45
|
|
|
kustomkarkommando posted:Amnesty was specifically tied to demobilization and disarmament. Political crime covers the generally "taking up arms against state agents" thing that's kind of the whole deal with internal conflicts, pursuing prosecution for the act of rebelling is just going to be a nonstarter. From a pragmatic point of view, I completely agree with you. It doesn't make it any better, since it still leaves war criminals, I.e. Rapists and kidnappers, free. What is more, I see a lot of, for example, Chilean leftists supporting the amnesty, while still demanding that military personnel under Pinochet goes to prison. In Chile they're even denying them them prisoner's rights that they'd be entitled to based on the time they've already served. It's the hypocrisy that bothers me.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 18:49
|
|
|
Non Serviam posted:From a pragmatic point of view, I completely agree with you. It doesn't make it any better, since it still leaves war criminals, I.e. Rapists and kidnappers, free. So you oppose negotiations unless rebels surrender and completely disarm before any terms are even broached but your only problem with the deal is lenient sentencing for war criminals? I don't see how those positions gel
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 18:54
|
|
|
Non Serviam posted:From a pragmatic point of view, I completely agree with you. It doesn't make it any better, since it still leaves war criminals, I.e. Rapists and kidnappers, free. I think the biggest problem here is that your ideological purity is preventing you from analyzing this any deeper than a civilization game. You can't accept the fact that even if the terms were set exactly like you want, either the conflict would never end or all the major players would still get away anyway in case of a prosecution. I think the major priority here is the civilians stuck in the middle of all this who keep losing friends, family and property everyday to both sides and just want it all to end. I would understand if your concern is that one of the sides would just disrespect the truce, but at this point I think that any peace plan that can be realistically pushed and approved is the best one. nerdz fucked around with this message at 19:29 on Oct 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 19:26
|
|
|
I can understand it from the perspective of the Pablo Escobar days, not wanting him to get away with his crimes essentially scott free. The question is, if the treaty was approved, would FARC continue to do what they were doing with impunity like Escobar did? If not, then there's little high ground to oppose it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 19:51
|
|
|
kustomkarkommando posted:So you oppose negotiations unless rebels surrender and completely disarm before any terms are even broached but your only problem with the deal is lenient sentencing for war criminals? I think that a government shouldn't capitulate to terrorist organizations. If there's a group of armed rebels in your country, openly threatening the safety of your citizens, it is that government's obligation to cut them down to size. When those idiotic Americans took over a federal building a few months back there wasn't a talk of "well, maybe let's give them the ground floor." Having said all of that, I can understand why people would support the armistice. I don't agree with the terms, obviously, but I can understand why the people of Colombia would agree to anything to finally have peace. If they democratically decide that these are the terms they want, well, there's nothing to do. It's their country, their choice. Before I commented here , however, I saw people ITT saying that the people in the No faction were "fascists, basically", as if opposing a lack of accountability, and a way to parliament for terrorist, meant you were just biding your time to start goose stepping around Bogotá. To simplify the discourse like that does nothing to bring peace and just demonstrates the ideological idiocy of some. Edit. It's not lenient sentences. It's community service for war crimes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 20:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 04:28 |
|
|
What if your government is also a terrorist organization?
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 21:26
|
|