Story Comments
Posted by: Wolfie2007 6 months ago
This page is a permanent archive of the comment below and its replies.
To view this comment in the context of the full discussion for the story, use this link.
-
0%
Wolfie20076 months ago
-
100%
djn3nunez36 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
So you're saying that General Vasquez and Gen. Luis Javier Prince Suazo did not study at Fort Benning, Georgia? Or perhaps some of the facts presented you disagrees with. How about you just list them and we'll have a honest discussion about them?
Reply-
-
-
-
0%
jcmcamis6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It's the vein in which the information is presented. Infamous? Only in the eyes of SOAW. I personally know officers and NCOs that worked there. All standup troops. The problem is that selective reporting paints a picture out of context. That's like saying all U.S. soldiers are bad because a few of the hundreds of thousands that deployed there violated the rules of engagement or committed crimes. I would argue that a percentage of all social groups, to include those that have been trained at Fort Benning, would turn out bad given there circumstances. Chances are they would have turned out bad anyway. So even though the generals in question may have studied there, doesn't make SOA infamous or controversial, except in the eyes of the SOAW, and you apparently.
Reply-
100%
djn3nunez36 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Yes, I think infamous in Latin America.
Reply
The SOA was founded in Panama in 1946 as a U.S. army training school for Latin American military personnel.
It trained Latin American soldiers in counterinsurgency techniques, before and during the years of the U.S. "national security doctrine." Many SOA graduates ended up involved in human rights violations throughout the hemisphere, in Mexico, Central America and South America.
In 1984, then president of Panama Jorge Illueca kicked the SOA out of his country, and it was moved to the army base at Fort Benning, Georgia.
In response to the controversy and protests by human rights activists, the SOA was officially "closed" in December 2000. But it reopened a month later as WHINSEC - in the same installations, with the same staff carrying out the same work.
The United Nations Truth Commission in El Salvador found that 19 of the 26 Salvadoran soldiers and officers implicated in the murders of the Jesuit priests were SOA alumni.
The 64,000 Latin American soldiers who have trained at the SOA also included three of the five Salvadoran troops who raped and killed the three U.S. nuns and a Catholic lay worker in 1980 and two of the three cited in the March 1980 assassination of Catholic Archbishop Oscar Romero, who was shot by a sniper while conducting mass.
A total of 48 of the 69 Salvadoran officers cited by the U.N. Truth Commission for human rights violations had been trained at the SOA.
http://upsidedownworld.org/main/content/view/1858/...-
0%
jcmcamis6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Let me ask you a question. Have you lived in Central or South America? Have you served in the U.S. Armed Forces? Do you have any connection at all with the U.S. military training program? Do you personally know anyone who has worked at the school? If not, everything you are presenting is hearsay. I can answer every question I asked with a yes. I served in El Salvador. I served in Guatemala. I served in Panama. I've traveled in 16 of 20 Latin American countries since 1983. I worked in the military's Security Assistance Program for half of my 24 year career in the Army before I retired. Oh by the way, did I mention that I have friends and family in several of those countries today. Do you honestly believe that you can preach to me about what happened, what's happening, or what could happen there?
Reply
What I attempted to do was to put the author's comments in context. You do understand what that means, do you not? You refuse to acknowledge any wrong-doing by anyone not affiliated with the school in the region. Even when I presented a by-name example. Have you ever seen or met Villalobos? I have. The United Nations Truth Commission was a travesty of justice and a completely biased report by people who are apparently just like you. Atrocities committed by people like Villalobos are perfectly acceptable because "the end justifies the means." But when someone you oppose does the same thing, look out. They are the most villainous and vile creatures on earth. Specifically, I have family in El Salvador still. During their civil war they were apolitical, caught between both sides. Both sides were equally bad, but that's not what the report says. So please don't throw it at me like a club.
My last point is this. Do you honestly believe that in countries where they have no former students of SOA, that there are not atrocities being committed? If you don't put it in context for the reader to decide, it's dishonest at best.-
100%
djn3nunez36 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Do you honestly believe that you can preach to me about what happened, what's happening, or what could happen there?
Reply
Do you honestly believe I was preaching. You still have yet to counter any of the facts presented in the article. All you have done is to put your perspectifve on the piece.
You refuse to acknowledge any wrong-doing by anyone not affiliated with the school in the region.
Um the artilce I linked to was mostly about wrongdoing by those who had attended the school, not the wrongdoing by others. But as a matter of fact the article does indicate just that. 2 of the 5 Salvadoran troops who raped and killed the three U.S. nuns and a Catholic lay worker in 1980 did not go the the school. And that 7 of the 26 Salvadoran soldiers and officers implicated in the murders of the Jesuit priests were not SOA alumni. Nice strawman argument though.
Atrocities committed by people like Villalobos are perfectly acceptable because "the end justifies the means."
Do you honestly believe that in countries where they have no former students of SOA, that there are not atrocities being committed?
More of that strawman stuff.
Yet with all your self promotion and trying to put the facts presented in the article into a context that fits your world view, you have not sucessfully contradicted any of those facts have you?-
Neutral
jcmcamis6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
What is a strawman to one, is perspective to another LOL. I said the article was inflammatory. It is. I said it wasn't complete. It isn’t. I never condoned the behavior. I don’t. What else would you have me say?
Reply
This discussion started because Wolfie stated the author was spinning the issue. In my view, like him, he was correct. Which is why I said, "which facts." It was sarcasm, because depending on which facts you present, the story has a different spin.
The author states, "Key leaders of Honduras military coup trained in U.S." The problem with the statement is that it wasn't a military coup. . The military, being directed to conduct a police action by their congress and supreme court, had a hostile element removed from "their" government. That hostile element, namely the former president, was defying a unanimous court and congress. Just because someone is elected, doesn't mean that they are above the law. In addition, at no time was the military ever in charge. Their government chose an interim president from the same political party as the former.
Next, the author states, " ... school based at Fort Benning, Georgia infamous for producing graduates linked to torture, death squads and other human rights abuses." The problem with that statement is what I've already stated. It's not the school that's infamous, it's the officer's and NCO's that went home and committed atrocities that are infamous. Using your logic, Cuba and Russia would be infamous for training communist insurgents in military skills for operations in Central and South America. Those countries aren't, but there are some people in them that are.
Then, the author says, "Leftist President Manuel Zelaya was kidnapped and transported to Costa Rica this morning after a growing controversy over a vote concerning term limits." Zelaya wasn't kidnapped, he was arrested, and the controversy only existed in Zelaya's mind. The Honduran government was united and resolute in its position and decision.
The author states, "Over the last week, Zelaya clashed with and eventually dismissed General Romeo Vasquez -- who is now reportedly in charge of the armed forces that abducted the Honduran president." Two high-ranking general's did in fact resign in protest of Zelaya's activities, but they were reinstated by the Honduran government after Zelaya was arrested.
We've already covered the "infamous" stuff, so I'll stop there. Some of the "facts" that the author presented were true, and some were not. But more egregious was that the author, though he presented some "facts," was not "correct."
I stand by my world view, which is obviously in clear contrast with your own. You can either continue to accept the spin, or you can choose to consider the perspective of someone who has "been there, and done that." The choice has always been yours.
Have a great 4th of July, our Nation's Independence Day!
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
100%
CaptainLucid6 months ago
-
0%
jcmcamis6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The lie is the picture being painted by a well-established left-wing propaganda machine where the story comes from. Take a little bit of truth, spin it, and presto! Instant self-gratification. Right out of the Saul Alinsky playbook. Pick a person, personalize it, demonize it, and hammer it home. The problem is that the authors are trying to depict that school as being bad. There's nothing wrong with the school, never has been. But there might be something wrong with some of its students. How convenient if you're against the military establishment.
Reply-
100%
dissent6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
are you denying its graduates include an array of people responsible for coups and brutalities in their own countries? .... bad apples, huh?
Reply
it's remarkable the legacy of death, brutality and horror a "few bad apples" can leave in their wake especially when we have trained them for just such a purpose
School of Assassins
What do Col. Byron Lima Estrada of Guatemala, Lt. Josê Espinoza Guerra and General Juan Orlando Zepeda, both of El Salvador, and General Juan López Ortiz of Mexico have in common?
They are all murderers. They were all trained at the School of the Americas. Because of them, and because of thousands of others like them, many people call U.S. Army's School of the Americas the "School of Assassins."
And what do Panama's Manuel Noriega, Argentina's Leopoldo Galtiere, Peru's Juan Velasco Alvarado, Ecuador's Guillermo Rodriguez, and Bolivia's Hugo Banzer have in common? They have all been dictators in their countries, and they were all trained at the School of the Americas. Because of them, and others, many people call the U.S. Army's School of the Americas the "School of Coups."
The School of the Americas (SOA) is a military training school for Latin American soldiers. SOA is an official program of the U.S. government, funded by the government and run by the U.S. Armed Forces since 1946. SOA graduates have long been implicated in terrorism, human rights violations, coercion, and atrocities committed against civilian populations across Latin America.
A University of Wisconsin graduate thesis demonstrates that the defenders of SOA are wrong. Studying data on individual SOA graduates over a 40-year time span, Kate McCoy found that "students who took multiple courses at the School were more almost four times more likely to violate [human rights] than their counterparts who took only one course. ... [G]reater exposure to the School of the Americas training makes trainees more likely to engage in human rights violations ..."
In its 57 years, the School of the Americas has trained more than 61,000 Latin American officers in combat techniques, command tactics, military intelligence, and techniques of torture. These graduates have left a trail of blood and suffering in their own countries. Today, SOA/WHISC trains about a thousand soldiers each year.
http://www.commondreams.org/cgi-bin/print.cgi?file...-
0%
jcmcamis6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I've read all those articles before. The assumption, and message I might add, is that it was "because of" SOA that those people committed the atrocities. Atrocities have been committed in those countries for centuries, long before the US ever existed. Unless you've forgotten the almost complete eradication of the indigenous peoples of Central and South America by the Spanish. And if you want to talk about El Salvador, let's talk about VillaLobos, now an upstanding Congressman, but once a vicious killer in command of an FMLN paramilitary group. According to intelligence reports, he personally killed between one and two dozen people personally, many using torture techniques. He was trained by the Cubans. And you wonder why I get a contrary attitude when zealots point fingers? For all the people that have died at the hands of US troops, it pales in comparison to what the Japanese did to the Chinese, or what the Russians did to their own, or what happened to the Jews before, during and after the Crusades all the way up to WWII. Where's the discussion about that? I stand firm. Yes, there were SOA grads that committed atrocities, but they most likely would have done them anyway as history has shown. To malign an institution that has also produced good officers is unjust. But I'm sure that doesn't matter to you, does it?
Reply-
-
100%
CaptainLucid6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
So your argument is we have been F ing the natives since columbus so therefore we should continue with no moral remorse. We also used to consider black people as property. Should we endorse that because it is an American tradition? Just because we have done bad things in the past is no argument to continue perpetuation wrongs. We have some bad history as a nation. We don't need to add anymore bad history. Close down our terrorist training camp now.
Reply-
0%
jcmcamis6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Simply put, it's called perspective. You don't throw the baby out with the bath water. That's my point. The article is inflammatory and out of context in the bigger picture. I could pick any school, exclude all but the bad apples, and make the same arguments the author is making. That is also my point. If you're going to make an argument, you present ALL the facts and let the reader decide. You don't spin the facts in order to get the result you want. It's dishonest and disingenuous. If the author said, for example, 10% of all graduates were later charged at some point in their life of committing atrocities, how would the reader react? Especially if the backdrop of the story was that culturally, atrocities have been committed in these very same cultures for centuries. Then to top it off, because 90% were following the newer rules, overall atrocities in the region had been lowered over time, wouldn't that also influence the reader? But that didn't happen. The author painted a picture that supports their beliefs at the expense of the whole truth. Again, that's my point.
Reply
-
-
-
-
100%
CaptainLucid6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
There is also nothing wrong with Al Quaida training camps by that standard. And yes I am against the military establishment and former general and president Eisenhower warned us about the military idustrial complex. We spend very little on defense. We spend a crapload on offensive war to oppress people so we can support dictators who will keep their people in poverty in return for American protection to fleece their resources. Anyone want to play W's bullcrap democracy bit on Kuwait or the Saudis who were the real source of the 9/11 terrorists? We never gave a crap about getting the people who attacked us. It was just an excuse to try to set up a puppet regime in the second largest oil country and was all planned before 9/11. It was all about stealing the oil and the chimp couldn't even get any oil other than what we smuggled out.
Reply
-
-
-
loading ...
People Who Liked This Comment (0)
No one voted this comment positively. Is it really that bad of a comment?
fsev41
dissent
CaptainLucid
hefaa1
Post Reply
You are not signed in to Propeller.com. Please sign in to post a reply.