Colombia: Bomb Blast Targeted at Controversial Former Minister
Tuesday 15 May 2012 was a tense and heavy day for most Bogotanos. The day started with a car bomb, deactivated by the authorities, in the Eduardo Santos neighbourhood, a few blocks away from the headquarters of the Metropolitan Police of Bogotá. Hours later, as protests [es] (which left 3 injured) emerged in the National University of Colombia because the Free Trade Agreement with the United States was entering into force, a bomb exploded on Caracas Avenue and 74 Street, in northern Bogotá.
Initially it was reported that the bomb exploded in a bus, but as more information came in, reports confirmed that a magnetic bomb was left by a walking man on the hood of the car of former interior Minister Fernando Londoño Hoyos [es], 67, a conservative lawyer and politician who held that office during the first years of former president Álvaro Uribe Vélez‘s administration. Two of his bodyguards, the driver of the bus, and two other people were reportedly killed [es], though official reports still claim only 2 died. Londoño was taken to a hospital t0 undergo surgery to remove a piece of metal from his chest.
Mr Londoño has been controversial [es]: he was involved in a financial scandal involving stocks of an oil company named Invercolsa and was barred from public office in 2004 for 15 years out of conflict of interest. After he left the Ministry, he started a morning radio programme, La hora de la verdad [es] (“The hour of truth”), devoted to supporting former president Uribe's policies and attacking FARC and other left wing guerrillas. He was also actively writing op-eds for El Tiempo and El Colombiano newspapers. He supported current president Juan Manuel Santos during the elections, but as many other staunch supporters of Uribe, he felt betrayed and now opposes most of his policies. The Foundation for Press Freedom (FLIP) condemned [es] the attack.
This attempt prompted thousands of reactions.
Car Bombing in Bogotá, Colombia targeting former Interior Minister Fernando Londono. Photo by David Maiolo under Creative Commons license (CC BY-SA 3.0)
Journalist Carolina Ruiz (@CaroRuizG) tweets [es]:
El terrorismo nos afecta a todos, independiente de las creencias políticas. Qué pendejada echarse culpas.
@JuliethBlues states [es]:
Lo peor que podría pasar es que a Londoño caiga en un atentado, su martirización le daría un poder impresionante a la ext.derecha
Dan Gamboa Bohórquez (@larepuvlica) wonders [es] about the possible reasons of the attempt against Londoño:
Fernando Londoño debe tener información peligrosa. Es la única explicación para atentar contra alguien irrelevante en la actualidad.
Richie (@MelisMatik) links the attack to other events in the day [es]:
Muy sofisticado el atentado. Súmenle día de protestas y votación del Marco para la Paz en el Congreso… ¿Para quién será el mensaje?
(Mr. Londoño devoted his latest radio editorial piece [es] to this framework).
Many Twitter users harshly [es] criticized [es] the media [es] coverage [es] of the attack [es]: (Warning: The next three links lead to sites with strong images) newspapers [es] and TV newscasts broadcast bloody images [es] of the injured, including Mr. Londoño [es], and the country's main radio network interviewed live [es] the mother of Mr. Londoño's driver, which was deemed sensationalist [es]. @LaCaballero writes [es]:
Los periodistas de medios masivos COLABORAN con el terrorismo. Ayudan a sembrar el miedo, la [z]ozobra, la confusión.
Andrés Guerra Hoyos (@andresguerraho) tweets [es]:
Lo mas duro es entender que existe una parte del Pais que hoy esta Feliz con el atentado en Bogota, Infames
Roberto S (@manoloparis_) criticizes [es] some ‘theories’ on the attack:
Por eso es que nos va como nos va, no falta la mente torcida que ya esta diciendo que es un autoatentado, Por Dios, y los medio[s] harán eco.
Frustrated, Olga Cuartas (@Olpacu) tweets [es]:
Ni para rechazar un acto terrorista somos capaces de unirnos como sociedad.
María (@lamarialeja) asks [es]:
No jodamos. ¿ Aún están usando esa falacia de “los buenos somos más”?.
Finally, @dianadaista reacts to the reactions (1, 2, 3) [es]:
1) Los atentados se han hecho en múltiples y muy diferentes gobiernos, vayan a culpar al mandato de su madre. 2) Londoño y los demás afectados son seres humanos, hacer chiste de ellos no te hace más irreverente ni interesante. 3) Quien se considere periodista, no puede estar arrojando juicios de valor y teorías así como así, para eso existen la taberna y la cerveza
In the blogosphere, Aleyda Rodríguez from Pulso Social writes about the coverage, rather than the reactions, on social media [es], and Javier Moreno shares his thoughts [es]:
Promover la confusión es preferible. Lo que importa es sostener la guerra activa en todos sus frentes. El juego de acusaciones subsiguiente es útil a los asesinos pues genera polarización, desconfianza y agresividad. (…) El mensaje de la explosión es abierto pero al mismo tiempo llega a quien debe llegar: cada cual lo interpreta a su conveniencia y cualquier interpretación es válida en tanto que no hay cómo refutarla. La amenaza es más efectiva y amplia cuando no se sabe de dónde proviene. Una amenaza sin firma es una amenaza contra todos.
