Colombian Spy Had Chips Embedded In Breast, Jaw
The New York Times reports today that computers belonging to the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) contain information that a spy working for the Colombian government was found by FARC to have TWO MICROCHIPS EMBEDDED IN HER BODY -- one under a breast and another under her jaw. The chips would most likely be RFID chips that would enable the Colombian government to track the movements of FARC rebels using hidden readers. The computers, if authentic (which they probably are, according to the Times), also show that Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez has been financially supporting the FARC, putting Venezuela into the same category as Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Sudan and Syria as a "state sponsor of terror."
1:25 PM * PERMALINK * 10 comments
Comments:
When you write Columbian it would mean a Columbian country, which does not exist. The country is Colombia so their naturals are colomombians
Sorry colombians
[quote]When you write Columbian it would mean a Columbian country, which does not exist. The country is Colombia so their naturals are colomombians[/quote]
If you are referring to the headline "Columbian spy..." then the term "Columbian" means that the spy herself is Columbian. From your writing, it seems that you are not a native speaker of english - and there's nothing wrong with that, but do you really think you should try to correct grammar in a language you yourself do not speak (or write in) very well? Perhaps you are a native speaker, and simply do not have good grammar skills.
Also, in english the term is "native" or "citizen" not "natural"
I like colomombian better.
None of the links even alleges that Venezuela is involved. And the notion that Venezuela wants Columbia to track FARC doesn't withstand the 'sensibility' test.
The claim that Venezuela is a state supporter of terror has no basis, as far as I can see. The U.S., on the other hand, starved a million Iraqis for a decade before initiating an illegal 'shock and awe' attack on and military occupation of Iraq that has killed hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi citizens. That's the definition of state-sponsored terrorism.
IMHO.
The claim that Venezuela is a state supporter of terror has no basis, as far as I can see. The U.S., on the other hand, starved a million Iraqis for a decade before initiating an illegal 'shock and awe' attack on and military occupation of Iraq that has killed hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi citizens. That's the definition of state-sponsored terrorism.
IMHO.
Monday, March 31, 2008 6:15:00 AM
^^^^^Your a dumbass
***** None of the links even alleges that Venezuela is involved. *****
Uh, most of the article is about Venezuela's involvement, including the opening paragraph: "Files provided by Colombian officials from computers they say were captured in a cross-border raid in Ecuador this month appear to tie Venezuela’s government to efforts to secure arms for Colombia’s largest insurgency."
***** And the notion that Venezuela wants Columbia to track FARC doesn't withstand the 'sensibility' test. *****
Reading the article before you comment would be nice. The story is about computers captured, and the information it reveals, including 1) Venezuela's involvement; and 2) FARC notes that say they found a Columbian spy with chips embedded.
***** The claim that Venezuela is a state supporter of terror has no basis, as far as I can see. *****
The article is about a basis for Venezuela as a state sponsor of terror. If Venezuela is supporting FARC financially, then it's a state sponsor of terror. That's what state sponsor of terror means -- when a state sponsors a terrorist group.
***** The U.S., on the other hand, starved a million Iraqis for a decade before initiating an illegal 'shock and awe' attack on and military occupation of Iraq that has killed hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi citizens. That's the definition of state-sponsored terrorism.
IMHO. *****
In that case, I recommend that you try using a dictionary. The definition of words generally isn't a matter of personal opinion.
Terrorism is: "The calculated use of violence or threat of violence to inculcate fear. Terrorism is intended to coerce or intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological."
Oppose the occupation of Iraq all you want, but you can't say the U.S. is trying to create fear in the Iraqi population -- quite the opposite.
Mike
Thanks, Mike et. al, for pointing out the link to the NYT article - oops, I missed it. If that makes me a dumbass, well, so be it, at least I'm not the kind of dumbass who resorts to name-calling. BTW, allow me to say: "The U.S. is trying to create fear in the Iraqi population." You can look it up - the purpose of "Shock and Awe" is to create fear. Thanx.
> If you are referring to the
> headline "Columbian spy..." then
> the term "Columbian" means that the
> spy herself is Columbian.
The problem with the headline is that there is no country named Columbia. So how can she be columbian? Where is she from? My guess is that she is from Colombia which would make her colombian.
***** "The U.S. is trying to create fear in the Iraqi population." You can look it up - the purpose of "Shock and Awe" is to create fear. Thanx. *****
It's to create fear in the government, not the population. Trying to get your enemy to lose its morale and give up is the main objective in any battle and has been since the beginning of time.
"Shock and awe" was designed to save lives. By trying to get the Iraqi government to give up early, the U.S. military was trying to shorten the war with minimum casualties.
Terrorism is a tactic used when the other side has overwhelming dominance and all you've got is the willingness to kill children and old people in the market or on the bus to freak out the population and get them to force the government into concessions. Totally different scenario.
Mike
Post a Comment
<< Home