Talk:National Liberation Army (Colombia)

Camilista Union

I've noticed that a number of international organizations, especially Human Rights Watch, refer to the ELN as the "Unión Camilista." However, the ELN's webpage seems to never refer to themselves like that. Can anyone explain? --Descendall 03:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

fairness (NPOV) concern

Wow. This page is completly biased against the ELN! It says nothing about the social conditions (exploitation, political killings, torture, unemployment etc...)that has given rise to, and continues to sustain, the organisation.

Again, there are many statements on this page which call ELN 'terrorist,' but I cant find any that call the Colombian state, and their financial backers in Washington, France and the UK, as the real terrorists, for their continued campaign agaisnt those Colombians who are sick an tired of being a neo-colony of Imperialism.

The page needs to be re written! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.21.186 (talk) 10:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Uh Buddy, they are terrorist. That doesn't meant there isn't a cause for their actions, Colombia has alot of social and economic problems. But just becuase you sympathize with them doesnt mean they arn't terrorist, why don't you try Getting in the shoes of those captured and tortured for nearly a decade if not more. Tell me those people did not feel terror, instead of becoming a revolutionary group that actually brought about positive change they kidnap people for money. And not just kidnap, its not a smooth 8 years for those people, thay are killed maimed, Raped, and abused in so many horrible ways. Those poor people are kept in the jungle with out medicine to die of sicknesses assosiated with the horrible conditions they are in.

My Point is they are exteamist, though they may have started out with good intentions. And they do nothing but cuase pain, how have they socially or economically helped Colombia? By involving themselves with the drug trade which only serves to further corrupt the govenment? By kidnaping future presidents that really really wanted to make change?

No I have no pitty for them or the bad reputation that they have given themselves, Their Ideals were not maintained and they simply became and wreckless and selfish as the govenment they hate. All the while the Colombian civilian lives in fear. A fear of taking a step forward to a brighter future because it would make you a target.

I thought this page was well written, it did not specify why the group came about, however they did go easy on them. Those people have no right to hurt so many in such a grea way, they should be so luck to get a report that doesnt mention all of the sick things they have done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.69.4.81 (talk) 22:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

By law´s relations, Czechoslovakian military heroes Gabcik and Kubis, were terrorists. Because, they killed Reinhard Haydrich, nazi mass-murder, and by international law accepted by U.S., Britain, Germany and Soviet Union, it was terrorist attack. Then, were they terrorists? No. They were heroes. ELN is "terrorists" only by "laws" of Americans.--89.176.61.150 (talk) 15:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, Gabčík & Kubiš were soldiers in the Free Czech army, and Heydrich was a soldier in the invading German army. Organized armed resistance against an invading force is not terrorism. Kidnapping, torturing and murdering civilians (a la the ELN) is. If you want to make the argument that "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" you're going to need to find a much better example Good Skoda (talk) 21:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

ELN is "terrorists" only by "laws" of Americans.

Any group that slaughters a bunch of peanut vendor footballers and spread their bodies around a region is a terrorist organization by any civilized standard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.79.10.114 (talk) 22:18, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention blowing up a pipeline and setting a whole town in fire, killing 84 people, half of them children. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.87.19.214 (talk) 02:16, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Elnlogo.PNG

Image:Elnlogo.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)