Talk:Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Portal:Colombia
 Colombia Portal
This article is within the scope of the Colombian WikiProject. This project provides a central approach to Colombia-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards. Click here and join us!.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
This article is a part of the WikiProject on Terrorism, which aims to provide detailed accounts of the individuals who have engaged in terrorism, shaping the world irrevocably over the past thirty years. If this interests you, you are invited to look over, or join our efforts
Peer review This is a controversial topic, which may be under dispute.
Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure you supply full citations when adding information to highly controversial articles.
This article is a frequent source of heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here.


Contents

[edit] My opinion on Farc

Farc has no future becouse it lacs ppl suport, instead of wining "hearts nad minds", they decided to kidnap and kill ordinary ppl and ofcourse that ppl dnt like them, sooner or later govermant will win this war...


I see you are highly informed on the subject... please read academic literature on the subject, you will see that their popular support is still massive, especially in the south of the country. Flo 17:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Last poll I saw put Marulanda's approval rating at 3%. Put you have a point; in some regions it probably approaches 10%, especially where the FARC is protecting cocaleros. --Descendall 02:10, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
An interesting subject, which we could debate endlessly, because the are no directly verifiable absolute numbers for such a vague thing as "popular support". Still, there are some indicators that, indirectly, give us a general idea of the situation. Even if we were to completely disregard polls, merely for the sake of this argument, we can see some concrete limits to that "massive" support.
For example, how large can it potentially be when less than ~5%-7% of the Colombian population lives in the extremely underpopulated south and southeast of the country (and when less than ~25%-30% of the Colombian population lives in rural areas as a whole, north or south).
Even if we automatically made every Colombian within that ~5% a FARC supporter (a completely artificial assumption, because, to name one factor, there are FARC supporters elsewhere, even if in much lower numbers), the resulting number is still not "massive" by any means.
However, I do acknowledge that FARC has a fair degree of popular support in those areas, especially within their historical zones of influence, and that those numbers can be proportionally high. Using Descendall's statement as a starting point, they could definitely have the support of, say, 10% to 25% of the population in Putumayo, to use a completely random estimate, and logically even higher %s could exist if you limit the universe to specific rural hamlets in the middle of nowhere. Truth be told, many of those people do have valid reasons (from their POV) to support FARC too, given historical neglect, abuses and so on, but most of the population doesn't share that view (doesn't mean that they'll "like" Uribe or the government either, which would be a hasty conclusion as well and not much better than stating that FARC have "massive" support).
That the FARC has many supporters there is undeniable, IMHO. And in raw numbers such support could look "massive" to outside observers, even if it pales when you compare it to the total population of the country (at least 41 million) and take all the other demographic indicators into account. Juancarlos2004 04:10, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Obviously, this isn't really the place to debate this, but it is a very interesting subject. Of course, you even run into the problem of what genuine "support" is. If "they pay me a few pesos more for my coca paste than the Autodefensas do" is "support," then they probably do have significant amount of support in some villages out in the hinterlands of Colombia. I would venture to guess, however, that there are very, very few people believe that the FARC is going to carry out a sucessful communist revolution and would acutally support such a revolution. In fact, I'd think that even the majory of FARC members don't actually believe that. Marulanda ain't exactly going to be sitting in the presidential palace any time soon, I can tell you that. --Descendall 07:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Incomplete, inconsistent and maybe POV article

I think this article is inconsistent and perhaps POV. For example: "It funds itself principally through extortion, kidnapping and their participation in the illegal drug trade." - a "fact claim" (but no source added) - and then "The FARC is believed to have ties to narcotics traffickers [..]" - an uncertainty - again with no neutral source. I have seen a quote by Andres Pastrana saying "for the moment no proof or evidence exists that the FARC is a drug cartel.", but I can't find any credible sources for this anymore. Has proof or evidence surfaced, since?

Their (FARC) "law" is, according to their hompage, Bill 002, Article 1: "Collect the TAX FOR PEACE from those persons or corporations whose wealth is greater than $1,000,000.00 US.".

This is what I have heard previously: they collect this tax even if the "wealthy person" is a legitimate business man or an illegal drug-lord, and that this is their connection to drugs. Article 2 and 3 gives a better picture of their reasoning behind kidnappings and extortions. But perhaps they are not following their own law? I don't know. But the article should.

The article should definitely mention this "law" of their. And if they are not complying with it.

Kricke 23:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe you have a point in that specific sources need to be cited and that the statements could and should be expanded. Though it's also important to note that Andres Pastrana made that claim at a time when information was lacking and when he was doing everything possible in order to treat the FARC respectfully, in the context of a peace process. When the peace process ended, he showed no such restraint. But still, that they have participated in the illegal drug trade has become increasingly evident in recent sources (I could name a few...the BBC, Author Steven Dudley's "Walking Ghosts", the International Crisis Group and others), even if the extent of their involvement and the reasoning behind it can be debated. Even the FARC don't deny it outright. The article should reflect that, of course.
Also, consider that not all of the FARC's kidnappings and extortions follow that law (it would be almost wonderful if they only kidnapped people with such wealth and absolutely nobody else). They have kidnapped and extorted people years to decades before its very existence. I wouldn't say that they are breaking that law per se, because that's only an additional set of criteria for kidnapping, not a "new policy". Juancarlos2004



the start of this article definitely does need sourcing, you just cannot say "It funds itself principally through extortion, kidnapping and their participation in the illegal drug trade." without any sourcing, as the first commentator said. Whatever "know" the fact is, it needs sourcing or it is just some more rumour added to the mill. The fact that most people agree doesn't make it true.

Flo 17:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC) 11 august 2006

I didn't question that per se either, so I've just added links to two of the sources I previously mentioned above. I could also add more if necessary. Juancarlos2004 19:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Btw, I forgot to add that several drug-related cases are already specifically mentioned in the "Activities" section. Juancarlos2004 03:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism

I think a sub division for criticism should be added. I'm open to your opinion on this. -Don Quijote's Sancho 05:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Page For Chain of Command

While Wikipedia has pretty good, neutral articles on the general overview of FARC, it lacked a little on the people who actually compose it. I have begun a new page, FARC-EP Chain of Command, which will allow us to see how the group was formed and woks today. Any help appreciated.

[edit] New Page

I have added a new page with specific information on the FARC-EP Eastern Block. Now added FARC-EP Western Block and FARC-EP South Block and FARC-EP Central Block.

[edit] Opening comments

Really, it can be argued that the FARC began as a social movement in its very early beginnings, and i can be also argued that they represent some social sectors to a certain degree (as does every single violent organization in the world , for that matter), but to pretend that it is still merely a social movement in this day and age, which is what a lone social movement classification suggests...is rather curious.

Their clear status as guerrillas, insurgents and, as viewed by the USA, the UN, the OAS and the EU, an organization of significant terrorist character, makes such a lone label misleading.

The EZLN, for example, is a totally different movement that can be considered a thousand times more social, given their different methods, scale of action, representation, goals and international recognition.

But the FARC, if they would belong to any category, using neutral terms, it would be to that of insurgents or rebel groups, terms which the FARC THEMSELVES have used to describe their own organization (especially the word insurgent).

The category of social movement might be acceptable if it was accompanied by several other qualifiers/describers (or simply other categories).

Here we go again with the "Terrorist Group Profiles, Dudley Knox Library, Naval Postgraduate School". This might be a worthwhile source but lifting everything from it is not NPOV. --Daniel C. Boyer

"Human rights are not subject to negotiation. They must be respected by all. It is time for the left-wing rebel groups -- and the right-wing paramilitary forces -- to end their blatant disregard for human rights and the rule of law in Colombia. It is time for the people of Colombia to take back their country from these terrorists." --This is pure advocacy and doesn't have any place in Wikipedia. --Daniel C. Boyer

Good job pointing this out, Daniel. I'm going to remove the advocacy. 172

I agree that the original article was quite POV. I think I did a pretty good job cleaning it up and I added some original content based on other sources. Please point to specific problems and I'm quite open to revisions. Just deleting the entire text is non-productive especially since my text is nowhere near the text before your original deletion. Daniel Quinlan 09:22 26 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I should also note that prior to my changes, the article contained factual inaccuracies. The peace talks are basically dead since the February 2002 (when the presidential candidate was kidnapped, she's still missing as far as I know). Daniel Quinlan 09:26 26 Jul 2003 (UTC)
I think your latest version was a good start. The only thing that is missing is a bit of historical perspective, ie, why the FARC arose, etc. Perhaps it can be added in due time. -- Viajero 14:50 26 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I think after recent edits by Viajero, myself, and others that we can remove the NPOV banner now. Okay? Daniel Quinlan 22:46, Aug 3, 2003 (UTC)

I think it's the most balanced article I've seen on them yet. I say ditch the POV warning notice. -- Jake 07:29, 2003 Aug 19 (UTC)

[edit] This may be quite some question but,

How do you join?????

sweet mother of jesus christ who the hell thinks about that? joining the farc isnt is like joining scouts, in fact, nobody joins the farc. their infantery is composed (mainly) by farm workers and people from small towns who are recluted at gun, or to save the life of their family.

- Dane Genarro Curley

None, or very few of the fighters in the FARC have joined wishingly. Most are recruited by force from thir house/farm when they reach 15-16 years of age. Yet others join simply because of the need to have a job, and FARC pays their fighters above minimum wage, provides meals, and "security" for their family in case they are killed or captured. Of course, there must be exceptions.

I doubt that anyone here is with the ejército del pueblo. Pehraps FARC will have info in their website at http://www.farcep.org/ 172 05:04, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Joining the FARC is not like joining a Book Club or even joining the EZLN...be careful what you wish for.

Wish for what you like.

Personally, I would only consider supporting FARC if:

They shed their "terrorist" label by instituting a few rules, such as 1) No civilian casulties 2) Engagement in parlaimentary politics as well as guerrilla 3) No taking of ANY hostages 4) Adherence to the Geneva Conventions at ALL TIMES 5) Not getting involved in drugs at all.

If they are indeed a Marxist group, fighting for peace and democracy, I hope they can clean up their act but still remain strong and defiant against the disgusting Colombian government.

Do they really think Marx and Guevara would support a movement, be it Communist or not, that was killing innocent civilians and dealing with drugs? They need to clean up their act!!!!

I added a link in the article related to this, about forced recruiting of children in their lines, can someone help introduce it properly into the article? --F3rn4nd0 14:14, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


An interesting article that appeared in El Tiempo recently stated the following. Really makes you want to join:

- "Pero al cabo de un tiempo quedó embarazada. Curtida en la vida guerrillera, sabía lo que eso significaba: un consejo de guerra que podía culminar en su ejecución o en un aborto forzoso con probablemente las mismas consecuencias."

- Loose translation: "After some time, she was pregnant. Involved in guerilla life, she knew what that meant: a war council that could determine her execution or a forced abortion with a similar outcome."

Colombiano21 02:54, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to know where you people have gotten your information regarding how "none, or very few join the FARC willingly" I'm aware of their recruitmet of children but have never heard of these claims. A year ago i remember an entire bloc of Farc guerrilla's surrendered, 70 in all, I dont recall them saying anything about forced recruitment. Another matter is that of the Seventh Guerrilla Conference in 1982 which was a radical re-working of the FARC structure, and the 96-98 offensive, I doubt that any of this would have been worth the effort to the FARC leadership if no one, or very few of their rebels cared for it.

[edit] Compliments on a Well Done Article; More Details

I lived in Colombia (Bogota) for several years, and your article captures, in an acceptably NPOV way, the FARC. I suspect there are things going on with the FARC that have not yet been broadly accepted as fact, but will be in the fullness of time, e.g. very tight links of FARC leaders to narcotics trafficking, especially following the power vacuum caused by the collapse of the monolithic Cali and Medellin cartels in the 1990's. Many people with experience in Colombia take these as accepted facts, but it is one thing for people there to know something experientially, and another to have a body of evidence to make it accepted more broadly. The article covers it pretty well. You might expand the history of the FARC to include the 19th century fights between the Liberal and Conservative parties: the FARC came out of a splinter of the Liberals. This conflict, known as "la violencia" (the violence), is the origin of the deep division in Colombia. Even the roughly equal-in-size police and army supported opposing sides of this conflict. Animosity and distrust between them continues to this day.

I think it would be useful for you to put something in your timeline about the bombing of the El Nogal club (Avenida 7a, Bogota) in 2003 (I think). It was an important event because it was a major bombing in Bogota, and the most directed attack at the wealthy Colombians. It might have signaled a more intense urban phase of the war. Time has not borne that thesis out, though it might mean it was a *failed* attempt to start a more intense urban phase of the war. Either POV would be important to evaluating the situation.

Also: you mention Fernando Beira Mar (AKA Fernandinho), but do not mention a FARC counterpart with whom he worked very closely: El Negro Acacio, a high-level FARC leader (head of the 16th Front) in eastern Colombia, on the border with Brazil. The presumption is that Negro Acacio, an Afro-Colmbian from Colombia's Valle Department, directs little fighting in his area, is actually more responsible for maintaining the logistic pipeline to FARC units nationwide. There is ample evidence that the Brazil and Venezuela borders (Cucuta, especially) are used as the principal transit and trans-shipment points for FARC (less so the Peruvian and Ecuadorian bordrers). Negro A. manages drugs being produced and shipped out of Colombia to Brazil (and onward), and the Brazilians are happy to provide money and weapons in return. Negro Acacio has been indicted in the U.S. for narcotics trafficking, with what I understand is ample evidence.

Based on a significant experience there, my own personal "unified theory" about Colombia is that the conflict has been corrupted. The theory goes, as regards only FARC, that FARC is not by design and original intention a narcotics trafficking organization, but they are "hooked" on money the trafficking gives them, and money they get from tactical alliance with the cocaine and (growing) heroin traders in Colombia. On the other side, the cocaine/heroin traders are not by design terrorists, but they use the FARC (and AUC) to keep up the chaos in the country that prevents effecitve police efforts to stop the drug trafficking. It is an eager marriage of convenience; both benefit, and the Colombian people suffer as a side effect. If my theory approaches the objective truth, it is a tragically sad situation: FARC leaders convince young followers they are fighting for a better society, when the truth is that the leaders are just enjoying big money and perks from their narcotics trafficking ties (blue label scotch, Rolex watches, stolen Luxury 4x4 vehicles, women). The typical grunt FARC guerrilla suffers in deprivation, and even if he (or she) sees the situation realistically (i.e., aspiring get a piece of of that big money FARC leaders enjoy), it only reduces their participation to a race for (in this case, illicit) wealth. No political component at all. This is pathetic, given what Colombia could achieve in peace, if it only would (there is still a stubborn "have and have not" problem in Colombia to consider). Very arguably, the FARC is not even really seeking political power anymore, since the current situation serves their economic needs just fine, and peace would jeopardize the cocaine/heroin/counterfeiting cash cow. Despite world political events since then (i.e. fall of USSR, Eastern European Communist regimes), the FARC cling to a minimally-modified 1964 model of Marxist-Leninist revolutionary dogma that has no reasonable possibility of success. I don't have many doubts about the situation, but I leave it to your good judgement.

The Colombian conflice is very complex, and there are others who benefit from continuation of the violence. Of course there are societal inequities and injustices in Colombia, which my note does not address. Also, none of the above intentionally minimizes or excuses the activities and ties of the paramilitaries (AUC); I just chose to focus on FARC for the purposes of this discussion.


[edit] The additions made by 66.189.89.87

First off, I'd say that they are on the whole some very interesting and much needed contributions to the article, especially as far as the historical background is concerned.

On the other hand, several direct quotes are made without pointing out the specific sources of the same...

[edit] Definition

"[FARC]...classified internationally as a terrorist group, is Colombia's oldest, largest, most capable and equipped militant guerrilla group..."

I wonder if it's acceptable to make this classification prior to the definition.

Maybe not, but to be frank I personally don't have strong views on that specific point, either way. In any case, if it's changed then logically it should also be modified in the AUC article and elsewhere, for internal and external consistency.
I loved it... we may hate them, but they sure are the biggest, baddest baddases!
Some vandal apparently took issue with it, focusing entirely on the intro. While reverting, I went ahead and cut out "most capable and equipped" -- concrete examples of FARC's capability etc. "look" less POV than superlatives (however accurate) at the head, and might not attract so many anonymous morons. Hope that's okay. Echeneida
Hahaha man oh man was I ever wrong! Echeneida

[edit] Relevance of Newly Added Pictures

I'm rather unsure as to the actual usefulness, neutrality and reasoning behind filling up the article with pictures of Fidel Castro, Che Guevara, JFK, Karl Marx, Southcom and so on. In other words, with graphical representations of individuals, objects and situations that already have their own encyclopedia entries and are only marginally related to the main subject of the article, which is the FARC and its role in the Colombian conflict. This is supposed to be an article ostensibly fit for inclusion in an encyclopedia, according to Wikipedia's guidelines, and such articles (here and elsewhere) usually do not need the presence of so many indirectly related images. At the very least, this makes the article look more disorganized than it already is. As an example of this kind of logic, this is like filling up an article on Hugo Chavez or his MVR political party with images of Simón Bolivar, Rafael Caldera, George W. Bush, oil wells and so on. This could even be termed image spamming. Including one or two of these images might make sense, but not so many of them. Juancarlos2004 22:12, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I thought the same thing. I see that you've cut most of them. I think that it's even a little silly to include Che in the article. Besides being leftist Latin American guerrillas, I really don't see the connection. FARC is less Cuban and Foco inspired than the ELN. The picture of Uribe strikes me as odd, also. FARC has fought for what, 42 years or something? They've fought against a whole lot of Colombian administrations, not just that of Uribe. I think that the article would look a lot better if instead we had some pictures of the FARC leadership (certainly Marulanda) as well as actual guerrillas. There seem to be a whole lot of pictures of the guerrillas marching in columns, raising the FARC flag, and other activities on the internet. I'm sure that we could find at least a few ones that are usable on wikipedia. The FARC itself puts out a lot of pictures for propaganda purposes. I don't know what the copyright status on those things are -- FARC is an illegal group in Colombia and the United States, so I doubt that they could go to court to claim a copyright violation. Plus, even if FARC could claim a copyright, the pictures are used for propagana, so you might be able to give it the {Promotional}} tag. --Descendall 21:51, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Please see my comments on Military Structure of the FARC-EP, Jacobo Arenas. and Military History of the FARC-EP, all of which have useless images in my opinion. --Descendall 22:04, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Designated Terrorist Org

I've created a new cat Category:Designated terrorist organizations as a subcat of Category:Terrorist organizations. The aim of this is to provide a more factual and NPOV description of orgs. DTOs have been specified on one or more lists - in this case both the US and EU. AndrewRT 12:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] question of funding

Have you noticed there isn't anything actually serious about the funding of that organization? because as far as politics goes there is a huge talking point on that issue, this should be tackled here more specifically, and try not to have POV issues...

Flo 16:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Explicitly addressed in the article's current text, you mean. In that respect, the article does need a lot of work, not only in that subject. But links already in the article (and in this talk page) do contain more specific and, to quote you, "serious" information. Not only mere political statements. Try to check a few of those and these (just those from a quick googling):
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3733/is_200501/ai_n13602077
http://uniset.ca/terr/art/colombiakidnapping.pdf
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Colombia_releases_detailed_report_about_the_FARC
http://www.peacenews.info/media/tools/download.php?id=24
I can also dig up more online and offline sources for that. I can't look those up and type them all right now, 'cause I'm not at home right now, but I can get around to it.
Of course, most available sources are ultimately based on estimates or extrapolations, because the full state of the FARC's real finances are secret, as are those of most clandestine organizations. It would be rather stupid for a clandestine organization to provide free, accurate and complete information about its own funding, other than boasts, vague statements and so on. Politics cuts both ways, you know, not only "against" these organizations but also "in their favor". Juancarlos2004 21:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


I didn't see u had answered earlier, too bad for me... I'll get to these addresses right now. And indeed as far as I found things politics do cut both ways, a shame that it is not a set science, or maybe what makes its interests. thanks for ur good work juan

Flo 17:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for pictures

I kind of like the "Wikipedians in Colombia may be able to help!" tag. Yeah, right: if you're in Colombia, just saunter on over to your local FARC base and take some pictures, I'm sure no one will mind. --Descendall 18:47, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

your local farc base? jumping beans what kind of image do you have about colombia

Check out this awesome article: sarcasm. --Descendall 21:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

--maybe a colombian journalist has some and can provide them!! huh? common sense? --F3rn4nd0 14:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] When is a flag not a flag?

I see that Image:Farcflag.PNG has been moved down the page and been changed to an "identification symbol" rather than a flag. I think that the most identifying symbol of the FARC is not their flag, but their armbands. Apart from that, their sheild[1] is more of an "identifying symbol" in my mind than their flag. I think this should be changed to "flag" and should probably be moved back up on top of the page. Also note that the current picture on top of the page, which is licenced PD-self, is a fairly obvious copyvio, and I've tagged it as such. --Descendall 21:43, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you on the flag being a flag, though the fact that the shield is, basically, a small version of the flag gives some room for interpretation as far as which is more of an "identifying symbol". It seems you're right on the copyvio bit... Juancarlos2004 08:32, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
yep I agree. --F3rn4nd0 04:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cite.php

I'm using Cite.php to cite some of the sources given in the article. This article is basically a poster boy for Cite.php: it has a million inline links, a great number of which are dead, to webpages that don't have static URLs. It will take me a few days to finish this up. --Descendall 04:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

My work here is done. --Descendall 04:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Photos of the FARC

The photos of the FARC on this page are listed as works of the United States Department of Justice. While it may be true that these photographs were used by the United States Department of Justice, it's pretty hard to imagine that they were originated by the Department of Justice. The FARC would have certainly killed any Department of Justice official who wandered into one of their camps and started to take pictures. Consequentially, I think the copyright status on these pictures is incorrect. --Descendall 23:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

If I am not mistaken, the picture of Che Guevara in the article is from his visit to Congo. The text claims that it is a picture of Che teaching the FARC some guerrilla tactics, something that, as far as I know, never happened. The picture has been published on several Che's biographies. Agudav 14:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/v/Talk%7ERevolutionary_Armed_Forces_of_Colombia_18d8.html"