Incidentally, the other source I could find for claims of the use of boiling water (as an execution method - reminiscent of the claims that the Uzbek leader boils his enemies), as well as other similar claims of atrocities, is from InSight Crime a non-profit think tank with offices in Washington DC, and Colombia, founded by US journalists and funded by Soros' Open Society Foundation.
I've seen allegations of involvement by the CIA, but I haven't really looked into them much. It would be around when Operation Condor was in full swing though
I think you can throw a stone in South America and find the CIA. Actually, on looking a bit further, one co-founder is a US Journalist, and the other is someone who claims to be a journalist, but has an interesting background as a British Army Officer, who apparently 'saw active service in Northern Ireland and Bosnia'.
Given how remote and rural the conflict was, and given the state of Peru's politics and history, I'm not willing to believe any of what is said about the communist party and insurrection there. I'd be a lot happier if there was corresponding testimony from the communist side (and if it weren't a crime to express support for them in Peru), but given that the trial was conducted in secret, all I ever have to go on when I do look into it ends up being western or settler-colonial government sources. Similar is true for FARC.
We have testimony from the "communist" side and it's "we dealt them a blow by annihilating 80 people there". they don't apologize or obfuscate so I don't get why you are for them
80 people, but who were those people (if that itself isn't an exaggeration ofc)?
I take it you're referring to the speech, but in that the 'victims' are referred to as combatants, so.
I'm for them because they're communists, and they're fighting against a US (and European) backed colonial government, whose ancestors genocided the people and took their land. That's enough for me, I don't feel the need to decry and condemn people resisting just because the US or a colonial government says they were bad - every side in a conflict says the other is bad, its expected.
thats certainly a claim I've read too, but then I suppose every revolutionary movement has had a conflict with local peasantry as well as the state - peasants are often co-opted to fight against such movements, and certainly landowners usually resist. From what I read about Peru, they were fighting cattle farming interests.
That I don't have an answer for
Me either! Its odd.
Incidentally, the other source I could find for claims of the use of boiling water (as an execution method - reminiscent of the claims that the Uzbek leader boils his enemies), as well as other similar claims of atrocities, is from InSight Crime a non-profit think tank with offices in Washington DC, and Colombia, founded by US journalists and funded by Soros' Open Society Foundation.
I've seen allegations of involvement by the CIA, but I haven't really looked into them much. It would be around when Operation Condor was in full swing though
I think you can throw a stone in South America and find the CIA. Actually, on looking a bit further, one co-founder is a US Journalist, and the other is someone who claims to be a journalist, but has an interesting background as a British Army Officer, who apparently 'saw active service in Northern Ireland and Bosnia'.
Given how remote and rural the conflict was, and given the state of Peru's politics and history, I'm not willing to believe any of what is said about the communist party and insurrection there. I'd be a lot happier if there was corresponding testimony from the communist side (and if it weren't a crime to express support for them in Peru), but given that the trial was conducted in secret, all I ever have to go on when I do look into it ends up being western or settler-colonial government sources. Similar is true for FARC.
We have testimony from the "communist" side and it's "we dealt them a blow by annihilating 80 people there". they don't apologize or obfuscate so I don't get why you are for them
80 people, but who were those people (if that itself isn't an exaggeration ofc)?
I take it you're referring to the speech, but in that the 'victims' are referred to as combatants, so.
I'm for them because they're communists, and they're fighting against a US (and European) backed colonial government, whose ancestors genocided the people and took their land. That's enough for me, I don't feel the need to decry and condemn people resisting just because the US or a colonial government says they were bad - every side in a conflict says the other is bad, its expected.
Removed by mod
thats certainly a claim I've read too, but then I suppose every revolutionary movement has had a conflict with local peasantry as well as the state - peasants are often co-opted to fight against such movements, and certainly landowners usually resist. From what I read about Peru, they were fighting cattle farming interests.