A series of 16 audios in which opposition leaders call for a coup against the newly re-elected president Evo Morales were leaked through various social platforms.

Local media point out that the destabilizing plan would have been coordinated by the United States Embassy in Bolivia prior to the elections and cites US senators Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, who are said to have direct contact with the Bolivian opposition in the strategy to overthrow Morales.

The plan focuses on the fact that if Evo Morales won the elections on October 20, a civil-military transition government would be established. The new government would allege fraud in the electoral process and would not recognize Morales' electoral victory.

In the audios filtered through social platforms opposition leaders call to burn structures of the government party and to put together a general strike throughout the country and to attack the Cuban Embassy in that country.

The publication of the audios arises in the midst of the political crisis following the electoral triumph of Evo Morales, whom the opposition accuses of committing fraud.

Weeks ago in a speech President Evo Morales had referred to alleged coup plans and that his government had the recordings. Neither the opposition nor the United States Embassy has referred to the leakage of the audios.

SUMMARY OF THE AUDIOS:

AUDIO 1: It illustrates the commitment of US senators Marco Rubio, Bob Menendez and Ted Cruz in the coup plan in Bolivia.

no lol

[–] Lemvi@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 2 years ago (4 children)

The coup was undemocratic, that does not mean the state before was democratic. Its a bunch of powerful people fighting for power with no regard for the will of the people.

[–] CaliforniaSpectre@hexbear.net 25 points 2 years ago

PIGPOOPBALLS

[–] space_comrade@hexbear.net 25 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

During the cold war, the anticommunist ideological framework could transform any data about existing communist societies into hostile evidence. If the Soviets refused to negotiate a point, they were intransigent and belligerent; if they appeared willing to make concessions, this was but a skillful ploy to put us off our guard. By opposing arms limitations, they would have demonstrated their aggressive intent; but when in fact they supported most armament treaties, it was because they were mendacious and manipulative. If the churches in the USSR were empty, this demonstrated that religion was suppressed; but if the churches were full, this meant the people were rejecting the regime's atheistic ideology. If the workers went on strike (as happened on infrequent occasions), this was evidence of their alienation from the collectivist system; if they didn't go on strike, this was because they were intimidated and lacked freedom. A scarcity of consumer goods demonstrated the failure of the economic system; an improvement in consumer supplies meant only that the leaders were attempting to placate a restive population and so maintain a firmer hold over them. If communists in the United States played an important role struggling for the rights of workers, the poor, African-Americans, women, and others, this was only their guileful way of gathering support among disfranchised groups and gaining power for themselves. How one gained power by fighting for the rights of powerless groups was never explained. What we are dealing with is a nonfalsifiable orthodoxy, so assiduously marketed by the ruling interests that it affected people across the entire political spectrum.

Replace Soviet Union with "Evo Morales" and it still holds. Nothing anybody could ever say to you could change your mind because your mind is already made up.

[–] ksynwa_from_lemmygrad@hexbear.net 5 points 2 years ago

Its a bunch of powerful people fighting for power with no regard for the will of the people.

Surely you have something resembling evidence to back up this claim and you are not just both-sidesing for US-planted White Christian fascists like a muppet? Even the pro-coup Financial Times admits that:

An ethnic Aymara Indian, Mr Morales empowered the country’s indigenous groups like no Bolivian leader before him. He cut poverty in half and presided over rapid economic growth, fuelled by exports from a gas industry he nationalised. These policies resonated strongly in a country where serfdom was only abolished in 1945 and indigenous people were forbidden until 1952 from entering the square outside the presidential palace.

[–] Tachanka@hexbear.net 5 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

"the white supremacist US-backed fascists are just as corrupt as the indigenous proletarian government"

arce-tent seethe evo

load more comments (83 replies)