Friday links Whose military buildup?
Jan 282008

In a movement apparently spawned by users of Facebook, millions of Colombians are expected to take to the country’s streets on February 4 to protest against the FARC guerrillas.

On its own, this is positive. After so many years of attacks on defenseless civilians in Colombia, the FARC should be made to feel the rejection of a critical mass of organized, energized fellow citizens. Though the guerrilla group is famously impervious to outside pressure or persuasion, perhaps a mass display of disapproval and rejection can have at least some impact on their morale, if not their behavior.

The march will be happening, though, in the midst of a strange, highly charged atmosphere within Colombia. While a display of outrage at the FARC is appropriate and well timed, the marchers and their organizers should avoid unintended consequences.

  • Don’t escalate the possibility of conflict with Venezuela. President Hugo Chávez is dead wrong to have called for giving the FARC political status in return for no change in the group’s atrocious behavior. He is even more wrong to be fanning the flames of conflict with Colombia by claiming that Washington and Bogotá are planning a military “provocation” against Venezuela. Hugo Chávez’s actions over the past two weeks are a key inspiration for the February 4 protest march.Marchers are free to say that Chávez is wrong and should stay out of Colombian affairs. But the march must not devolve into an expression of anti-Venezuelan sentiment. If the protests are filled with bellicose or warlike messages about Colombia’s neighbor, they will heighten tensions, taking both countries further in a disastrous direction in which neither truly wishes to go.
  • Don’t let it turn into a pro-Uribe political rally. With the president’s popularity at 80 percent and his anti-guerrilla policies widely backed, many marchers may use the February 4 rallies for partisan purposes. The message may be that Uribe is the only leader capable of fighting guerrillas and, as a result, he must be re-elected to a third term in 2010.It was only five years ago in the United States – post-9/11 and pre-Iraq – that George W. Bush had a popularity rating similar to Uribe’s. Today, thinking back on that period makes most Americans cringe. President Bush’s 80-percent period was marked by the Patriot Act, warrantless wiretaps, renditions, waterboarding, rampant media self-censorship, “shock and awe,” and “Mission Accomplished.” If the anti-FARC protests become a massive pro-Uribe demonstration, Colombia will be that much more likely to commit similar mistakes.
  • Don’t intimidate the opposition. Many Colombians oppose the FARC but have deep doubts about the Uribe government’s security policies. Many Colombians oppose the FARC but believe that only negotiations offer hope of achieving peace or releasing long-suffering hostages. Many Colombians still recall that key government supporters also have had long histories of supporting paramilitarism, and worry that they may avoid justice.Will there be space at the marches for those who reject the FARC but who believe in finding another way out of Colombia’s conflict, and who are not among the 80 percent who claim to support Uribe? Or will the marchers do their utmost to make them unwelcome? Will they even find themselves subject to unfounded accusations of supporting the guerrillas, if not outright aggression?

In today’s El Tiempo, columnist María Jimena Duzán expressed some of these concerns quite well. Here is a translation.

To the Facebook Marchers
By María Jimena Duzán
El Tiempo, January 28, 2008

It is impossible to deny the impressive response to the call that some Colombians made via Facebook to carry out a march against the FARC next February 4 all over the world. For a country accustomed to not protesting about anything, this coming awakening can be ignored neither by social organizations nor by political parties.

Having said that, it is also evident that for many Colombians who do not belong to Facebook’s community, this march raises more than one concern. The first is that there is an important sector of Colombian society – of which I form a part – that does not feel represented by the main postulate, over which the march has been conceived: “No more FARC!”

At first glance, the slogan doesn’t inspire much disagreement – nobody in the country likes the FARC. However, things get complicated when one views their Facebook pages and notices that the march organizers are not interested in the details of what might be the way to achieve that purpose. I respect their position, but I do not share it. I don’t like false shortcuts. Nor do I believe that we are “near the end of the end of the FARC,” as Gen. [Freddy] Padilla [chief of Colombia's armed forces] suggests. After five years of struggle against the FARC, we have a guerrilla group that is beaten back but not defeated, and which maintains its rearguard intact.

I think that the only way we can remove this scourge is through a political negotiation. Something which – it is good to clarify – has not kept me from going out to protest the FARC, which I consider to be a terrorist group that must be repudiated.

Another aspect of the call to protest that concerns me is its organizers’ insistence on not including a rejection of other forms of violence, since “it would do damage because it clouds the message.” With this virtual argument, with a single cut they exclude the 5 million victims of the paramilitary holocaust who are still awaiting the arrival of the truth, justice and reconciliation that the government promised them. It is probable that the victims of paramilitarism don’t belong to the select Facebook club, but that doesn’t mean that they don’t exist in reality.

It is especially worrying that young Colombians are so happily willing to reduce the complexity of Colombia’s conflict, and to consider the FARC the greatest evil, while they convert paramilitarism and narcotrafficking into lesser evils (see ). According to Michael Ignatieff, who is so much in style today, a society that tolerates its lesser evils for too long runs the risk of turning them into greater evils and, at the same time, lays the foundation for a government devoid of political ethics.

The other great virtual lie is to say that it will be a march with no political content. It could have started that way, I don’t doubt that. But today it has been co-opted by President Uribe, who sees in the declared purpose of the march a congruence with his own presidential speeches. It is no accident that it is being sponsored by “Colombia is Passion” [the Colombian government's image-boosting public-relations campaign].

My final doubt is that this protest has an element of inflated patriotism that disgusts me, because it exacerbates a false nationalism: that which one sometimes feels on “La W” [news/talk radio station] when Colombians call from Bal Harbour to condemn [freed hostage] Consuelo de Perdomo for having given her captors a goodbye kiss. There is no doubt that Chávez’s interventionism in our affairs causes repulsion, but it is a bad joke to appeal to patriotic sentiment when there is no anti-FARC military operation in which the U.S. embassy is not involved.

Finally, I am full of fear that the government could use this march not to move the country toward peace, but to foster its agenda of re-election and to consolidate its image of the great caudillo and savior of this nation.

Having said all of the above, I will go out and march, though I will feel like a cornered dog among so many uribistas.

27 Responses to “The February 4 march”

  1. Teo Ballve Says:

    If the February march was called FOR “peace” and AGAINST “war” I think it would be a very different kind of march, and I would have no doubts about joining it. But since it is “against the FARC,” the media, the government, and the most vocal participants of the march will turn it into not just a “pro-Uribe political rally,” as Adam fears, but also–and much worse in my eyes–into a full-scale pro-war rally. The hostage crisis will be sidelined, as the actual victims of the war always are, and Uribe will feel emboldened to follow through on potentially disastrous military rescues (or however he wants to couch it) and more fighting.

    Colombians are incredibly patriotic, and Chávez has caused more Colombians to rally around Uribe–and by extension his policies–than the FARC ever did. (Note how strongly anti-Chávez sentiment will be expressed at the march.) The 80% approval is unprecedented for Uribe, and it spiked when Colombians started feeling that Chávez was insulting and threatening their country.

  2. Santiago Says:


    We agree sometimes, disagree some others, but you are absolutely right on point on this issue. Keep “calling them as you see them” – it makes for good, informed debate, even if we don’t fully agree all the time.

  3. Camilla Says:

    You know what Adam’s exhortations to the vast Colombian majority remind me of? George Bush Senior’s exhortations against ’suicidal nationalism’ to the Ukrainian people on the eve of their liberation from six decades of totalitarian communism. Somehow, it was the wrong warning.

    Unless the left learns to recognize that its appeasement of terrorists, as well as its radical-chic salons of Paris that worship terrorists really don’t go over well with Colombians, there’s little doubt this march will have a pretty strong intensity. People get motivated to march when they feel their views are not being heard. Right now, they’ve been drowned out by the kultursmog of appeasement and kumbaya ‘understanding’ from even the moderate self-congratulatory left.

    Here’s the reality that the better ones pay lip service to, but don’t really ‘get.’ Crimes have been committed. People have been killed and been driven from their homes and had their lives disrupted by FARC. The world has been indifferent to theri plight. Venezuela and Ecuador have provided safe-haven for these terrorists and all the left ever does is defend them as paragons of virtue. Until the left develops a little more introspection about why people just don’t want to live with terrorism, they will be continually surprised by the Colombian people, clueless about why they march. But I bet some will write it all off as more evil and scary than actual FARC activity. In that way, it reminds me of Bush I’s exhortation against the Ukrainians, as if Ukrainians were the real problem and not totalitarian communism. Leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

  4. Camilla Says:

    Memo to María Jimena Duzán: Don’t like it? Don’t go. Nobody’s making you. Maybe the para dirtbags are considered a lesser evil because they have laid down their arms. You might consider writing an open letter to FARC asking them to do the same thing. Or do you have a different standard for FARC?

  5. LFM Says:

    Since I’m pretty bad making forecasts, here’s one just hoping it self-destroys:

    Sept. 6, 1952.

  6. jcg Says:

    Let’s just say that I’m far more in agreement with the above concerns as expressed by Adam, than with those expressed by María Jimena Duzán herself, though there’s some amount of overlap between the two.

    I am not pro-Uribe, so you won’t see me chanting anything in favor of him or his policies in general.

    But I have absolutely no problems assisting such a march against FARC, even if it doesn’t explicitly call for peace or for a negotiated end to the war, though those are ultimately my personal desires.

    Why? Because, while I would personally prefer a wider march for peace and against war (I was too young to consciously choose to participate in the late 1990’s movements, so I only have a vague recollection of them), I think there’s also a need to reject FARC’s crimes.

    Just as there is a need to reject those of the paramilitaries and the government’s own flaws.

    But it doesn’t always need to happen during the same event. There can be more than just one kind of march, you know.

    I would have no problems participating in a similar event exclusively against paramilitaries (of which there have been many in the past, though mostly in a local rather than fully nationwide or international scale…if someone begins to arrange such a movement, it would be for the better).

    I understand that there will be many pro-Uribe people in these marches, some of them quite aggressive and potentially intolerant, but I don’t see how that necessarily prevents the more critical individuals from participating per se.

    If anything, perhaps the fact that some people in the opposition are refusing to participate and preemptively demonizing it as a pro-Uribe event (while others, admirably enough, will either participate or will hold more general events during that same day, such as the PDA) is what may be allowing the Uribe’s supporters to take more control of the march than they should, not always the other way around.

    In other words, one of the best ways to keep the march on message, so to speak, is to participate in it and show that more Colombians of different political and ideological colors reject FARC. Even if they may also reject Uribe or the paramilitaries or a million other things, it’s not always necessary to try to do everything at the same time, so to speak.

  7. March against FARC, end the kidnapping « latin american princesa {LAP} Says:

    [...] read Plan Colombia’s commentary in English, which includes the translation of an article from Colombia’s El Tiempo about the importance [...]

  8. Christopher Colbow Says:

    I think Adam and María Jimena Duzán have over-analyzed the march. I respect their opinions, but at the same time it bothers me. It’s like when you get the family together to go do something and there’s always somebody that has to complain and ruin it for everyone. If we don’t do this now, do it with force, and continue with many more, then the FARC wins. If you have your doubters, your naysayers then the FARC wins. That’s what terrorists thrive off of. That’s how they justify their existance. It only takes a simple minority, a tear in the armor, to rip the whole thing apart. Adam and Maria, you represent that tear. Dig deep down and come to terms with that whatever other pansy excuse you might have for why this event can be negative, none pails in comparison with the monstrosity of the FARC. For the future of Colombia, they must be eliminated, sooner rather than later.

  9. Adam Isacson Says:

    Did you seriously just call me a pansy? Thanks for illustrating my point – this sort of thing is exactly what my post was about.

    That “with us or against us” rhetoric is absolutely poisonous, but I fear Colombians will be hearing a lot more of it between now and the fourth.

  10. Sergio Méndez Says:


    Since you are such a hawk and anti-apeaser with terrorists…why I never hear your crying voice raised against the peace process with paramilitaries, and the soft 8 year sentences – not counting benefits for confesions- this people are going to recieve (including the demand of the colombian goverment to give them “political status”)? Why is that straightforward hypocresy is the credo of the right?

  11. Tambopaxi Says:

    Colombia’s a conservative country in its outlook by nature. In that context, a “facebook” demo like this makes perfect sense.

    Still, since I consider the AUC and their allies and the cartels to be even worse enemies of a civil, peaceful Colombia than the FARC, I’d argue that the demo should include protests against these last two groups as well; they are, after all, co-responsable with the FARC, in the lawlessness that challenges what can and will be (I hope) one of the greatest countries in Latin America.

  12. Randy Paul Says:

    That “with us or against us” rhetoric is absolutely poisonous, but I fear Colombians will be hearing a lot more of it between now and the fourth.

    It really worked for the Bush administration, too, didn’t it? Sheesh.

  13. jcg Says:


    “Colombia’s a conservative country in its outlook by nature. In that context, a “facebook” demo like this makes perfect sense.”

    I don’t think Facebook or other modern forms of communication through the internet is exclusively “conservative”, but…

    “Still, since I consider the AUC and their allies and the cartels to be even worse enemies of a civil, peaceful Colombia than the FARC, I’d argue that the demo should include protests against these last two groups as well; they are, after all, co-responsable with the FARC, in the lawlessness that challenges what can and will be (I hope) one of the greatest countries in Latin America.”

    It’s harder for me to reach that conclusion about who is the “worst” enemy, if you put it that way…so I’d leave that point alone for now.

    But while I’d support a more general protest…what is wrong with having a separate protest against each party?

    There have been plenty of (usually smaller and less publicized, admittedly) anti-paramilitary, anti-government or even anti-Uribe marches, where the crimes of the FARC are notoriously absent. Nobody would even think of mentioning them.

    And I think there’s no problem with that, at the end of the day.

    If someone crashed one of those marches by saying that FARC’s crimes aren’t being mentioned, that person would probably be….”not very well received”, to sum things up. It’s only when anti-FARC marches are being considered that the issue of “inclusiveness” moves to the center of the debate.

  14. Camilla Says:

    Sergio: Because the paras have disarmed and are no longer part of the equation. Like the M-19, they got away with too much, but the deal was done in exchange for laying down their arms. I cannot say I like it, but I understand why it was done. The M-19, those dirtbags who incinerated the Supreme Court also got off scot free, proving to the world that terrorism pays, now they are being touted as paragons of virtue even on this site as that creepy Petro guy, his hands still bloody from all the M-19 massacres he was involved in, comes to Washington claiming to be a paragon of human rights, why the very conscience of Colombia! (Ugh). Much as I hate the idea, I would favor a similar 8-years-and-you’re-out program for FARC if it would lay down its weapons. Of course, FARC already has that on offer but it prefers to keep killing and kidnapping. This shows you how inhuman they are. They could get out of this with minimal penalties and still they don’t. They prefer killing instead in their bid for absolute power. They are the Pol Pots of Latin America.

  15. Camilla Says:

    Tambopaxi: The march is being conducted against FARC because they present the realest danger to the country. The paramilitaries have disarmed. Nobody loves them. There are no radical-chic salons in Paris feting them as romantic guerrillas, there are no Danish tshirt-sellers sending them money, there are no paramilitary news services overseas, there are no little Dutch girls joining up with the AUC for ’social justice.’ Everyone despises the paras and everyone knows that the paras’ leaders and killers are sitting in jail, while their underlings are trying to get on with their lives as decent people instead of thugs. Not so with the FARC. Just two weeks ago it kidnapped another group of six tourists to show that it’s still in business, and the Colombian army only rescued two of them since. It’s launched attacks and it’s expanded its franchise to base camps over in Venezuela, tolerated by Hugo Chavez, who champions them. It continues to hold 750 other hostages. It loves to incinerate little villages. In short, it is the biggest problem Colombia faces today. That’s why people are marching. They don’t want to go over the problems of the past. They know that Danish tshirt sellers are still actively romanticizing them while the world is silent, acquiescent in its complacency, dismissive of Colombians’ lives. That’s why Colombians are speaking out about FARC next week. It’s because they know nobody otherwise cares.

  16. Sergio Méndez Says:


    So a terrorist, in your right wing Reagan “we-don´t-negociate-with-terrorists” rethoic, is fine if he or she disarms? So if Osama Bin Laden sends a letter to the white house saying “I dissarm”, that is fine with you? I don´t think so. I think you are using the M-19 as an excuse (by the way, read the investigations. It was THE COLOMBIAN ARMY that most probably incinirated the supreme court building). And of course, you never ever explained why a terrorist made by ex mafia gangs, landowners, that brutally masacred entire towns and displaced millions of peasants from their lands, can have the status of political (What political idea was the AUC defending, aside the interests of landowners, mafias and the colombian state?) and the FARC are denied it at the same time? Again, you are a right winger, and being so, you are just anoither straighfaced cynic hypocrite

  17. jcg Says:

    Sergio Mendez: Wait a minute…at this time the AUC have no such political status (there was, in fact, even a specific reform to a preexisting law, which removed the need for such recognitions during negotiations..). Even the entire debate about whether the crime of “sedition” applies to that organization or not hasn’t reached such a conclusion.

    But even so, for the record, the current government has also said that it could recognize such a status during peace negotiations with the guerrillas (including the ELN, which has only entered “exploratory” talks thus far). Previous administrations have also given political recognition to FARC and ELN, so it’s not too hard to see that happening again.

    As for the Palace of Justice, while it may (may, I repeat) be that the military may have started the fire, not to mention participated in other abuses and disappearances (which seems to be clearer), that hardly means the M-19 had no responsibility at all, even though I don’t really share most of Camilla’s opinions and descriptions.

  18. Sergio Méndez Says:


    My point is not that AUC have a political status, but rather, that the Uribe administration has denied it to the FARC but want it for paramilitaries. That is a double standard. You point that the state will give it to any group (citing the ELN as an example). But I think there is a twisted logic behind the state there: they will give ELN or the FARC the political status if they demobolize or negociate peace. In other words, they will give them that status not cause they deserve it (whatever their human records may be), but because it is a political move. The label is given at the political convinience of the goverment, it doesn´t respond to a reality.

    About the Palace of Justice, I am not saying the M-19 has no responsability for what happened there. I am pointing that the event of its burning was caused more probably by the army, and not by the M-19. And that in the official account of what happened there, that official account defended by Uribe and right wing sycophants, the state did nothing wrong, nor acted criminally, when all the evidence points to the contrary.

  19. Christopher Colbow Says:

    [That “with us or against us” rhetoric is absolutely poisonous, but I fear Colombians will be hearing a lot more of it between now and the fourth.]

    But it accomplishes something…you need a concerted effort or else it doesn’t work. You don’t go to battle with half your troops trying to figure out whether or not it’s the right thing to do (extreme example).

    Bush’s approach did work, he changed the reality of the situation in the Middle East. Whether or not he changed it for the better, we have yet to see.

    I am not saying that we have to be hawkish or dovish, but that we have to get on the SAME page quickly or else we’ll make no progress and in another 40 years others will be having the same debate.

  20. jcg Says:

    Sergio Méndez : Part of the problem is, precisely, that applying such a label is inherently political in practice. I don’t disagree there.

    But that goes far beyond Colombia or Uribe alone.

    It’s not like there is an objective and universal set of rules that determines what is “political” and what isn’t…something which all countries and states must be forced to accept and apply at all times. It doesn’t really work like that in practice.

    There is at best only judicial and historical precedent, which is what has been applied so far in Colombia itself.

    Uribe’s administration has tried to go against that precedent, more or less, by wanting to recognize the paramilitaries as political criminals. However, judicial authorities have disagreed with this, so the point is mostly moot at this time.

    It’s also true that, for the most part, previous governments either didn’t explicitly recognize the political status of the different guerrilla groups at all, or only did so during negotiations.

    Jailed guerrillas have been “political criminals” before the law, because the crime of “rebellion” can be considered to be political, but in practice their organizations didn’t necessarily get an explicit recognition outside of negotiation attempts.

  21. Randy Paul Says:

    Bush’s approach did work, he changed the reality of the situation in the Middle East. Whether or not he changed it for the better, we have yet to see.

    Do you honestly believe that things could be for the better in the Middle East than they are now?

  22. Camilla Says:

    Sergio: No, of course not. But Colombia is a democracy and this is what Colombia’s democracy and its elected leaders decided would be the best possible solution. Remember: in 1998-2002 they were losing a war and three groups of terrorists, plus the dopers, were about to take over the country. What would your perfect solution be in the absence of very much money? Take them all on at once? Do you suppose they would win that way? What makes you think they would win that way?

    I come from a country where there is tons of money so of course I wouldn’t take bin Laden’s claim that he wants to lay down his arms seriously and he’s not the type who would make it. I don’t need him to lay down his arms or ‘reconcile,’ I just need to see him dead and that’s all I’ll take.

    But Colombia was almost entirely on its own, all alone, no one helping them much, US aid puny and pathetic, and all HRW ever did was criticize them. They were desperate for some wedge to leverage peace. Colombia’s solution was a tactical one, to disarm as many as possible they could so that they could at least take on the ones who were least interested in peace. It’s easier to take on a smaller single enemy than three big enemies. And as I said before, monsters like M-19 got such amnesties, totally undeservedly, but it was seen as the best solution of the time. I don’t like it of course, but this is what Colombians decided as they did with disarming the paras. That latter decision left FARC isolated with the remaining choice to disarm or continue to murder, maim, corrupt and terrorize. They still prefer the latter.

    Most paras I’ve met are low class dirtbags with no interest in defending the ruling class – they were gang types looking for ways of protecting themselves from the onslaught of Marxist terrorists who were shooting at them in their bedrooms and streets, and kidnapping them in their barrios and shantytowns. They were a highly reactionary group, but it’s fair to say that had there been no FARC, there would be no paras. FARC started it. FARC is the one that wants to overthrow the government and install a Pol Pot-style communal regime in the country with no respect for the individual. They’re the only remaining enemy.

  23. Facebook Used to Battle Colombian Revolutionaries - Covering All That's Social All the Web Says:

    [...] protesting the Farc, and they were organized through Facebook. This is by far one of the most inspirational stories I have heard coming out of Facebook in a long time. Thousands of Colombian youth standing together [...]

  24. Teacher Bytes » Blog Archive » Facebook used to spark worldwide protest Says:

    [...] your cause? How could you do it? Yesterday, February 4th, millions of Colombians around the world protested the violent actions of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia aka FARC. How were organizers [...]

  25. Christopher Colbow Says:


    You look at the ground situation as reported by the media and it seems dismal; however, you talk to returning U.S. troops and they have a lot of positive comments to make about the U.S. presence in Iraq. There are groups in Iraq (Shite & Kurdish) that are extremely grateful to have Saddam out. I have read that many prefer the current situation then to the one they lived in under his rule. Will the Middle East as a whole be a better place as a result of all this? Will Saddam’s ouster and the new Iraq establishment become a catalyst for the ouster of other supressive regimes? Only time will tell. Nothing happens overnight so we have to view this from a long-term perspective to really gauge the overall effects of this invasion. On the flip-side, the whole country could spiral down into chaos and all hell could break loose in the region. Even if it all turns out for the better, does the end justify the means?

    This debate could go on and on, and the truth is that there are winners and losers in all this. You’ll find people that welcomed the invasion and those that don’t.

    I am going to reserve my opinion on this event until some time passes, so that I can actually gauge the end result and whether it was worth it.

  26. Nicolas Zea P. Says:

    In English:
    The Colombian People has told to the FARC, to the President Uribe and to the World, that we wants the Peace. With the deviation of the warlike resources in this address, it is possible to reform our society.
    This is a first step, then continue the other destabilization factors…

    This type of marches never before could be carried out against the paramilitary groups with this magnitude, not because the people didn’t want it, just the opposite, because the paramilitaries are constituted as the absolute executioners against the conscience and the freedom of expression, as “Establishment Creature”. Now, in spite of having Colombia a government of “Hand-right “, the country have an significant evolution, for capturing, accusing, judging, condemning and imprisoning to the corrupts involved with them. The Colombian people requesting to the FARC for they abandons its disproportioning protagonist mediatic as “People’s Army” and they demential Human rights violations, for to find the true solutions. For nothing it is a secret that the the business of the drug traffic feeds the monster of the war, sustaining over the existence of the guerrillas, contra-guerrillas, paramilitary and all its suppliers of weapons and services.

    En Español:
    El pueblo Colombiano les ha dicho a las FARC, al Presidente Uribe y al Mundo que queremos la Paz. Con la desviación de los recursos bélicos en esta dirección, es posible reformar nuestra sociedad.
    Este es un primer paso, luego seguirán los otros factores de des-estabilización…

    Este tipo de marchas nunca antes se pudo realizar contra los grupos paramilitares con esta magnitud, no por porque el pueblo no lo deseara, todo lo contrario, porque los paramilitares se costituyeron como los verdugos absolutos contra la conciencia y la libertad de expresión, como un “Engendro” dentro del “Establecimiento”. Ahora, a pesar de tener Colombia un gobierno de “Derecha”, el país a evolucionado significativamente capturando, acusando, juzgando, condenando y encarcelando a los corruptos involucrados con ellos. El Pueblo Colombiano le esta pidiendo a las FARC que abandone su desproporcionando protagonismo mediático como “Ejercito del Pueblo” y su demencial violación de los derechos Humanos, para que se sume a la busqueda de las verdaderas soluciones. Para nadie es un secreto que el el negocio del narcotrafico alimenta al monstruo de la guerra, sosteniéndose sobre la existencia de la guerrilla, la contraguerrilla, los paramilitares y todos sus proveedores de armas y servicios.

    Nicolás Zea P.

  27. jj benitez Says:

    todo es tonta mentira, hasta cuando nos seguiran mintiendo??? uribe; la verdad de tras de uribe ese genocida que fundo las convivir, ese ascesino que ha mandado a matar campesinos. el mismo que con castaño mando a matar a pizarro yque tiene cientos de proscritos, que han huido de su telaraña.
    uribe un asesino, nunca me olcidare de lo que le hicieron a mi hermana sus atudefensas
    lacayo mentiroso con cara de yo no fui. mientale al pais mientale uribe, pero seguiremos existiendo quienes conocemos su verdad, yo marchare contra las farc o las guerrillas el dia que colombia marche contra uribe. aa pero se me olvidava que el dueño de la television colombiana es el principal socio de uribe. ascesino….

Leave a Reply