Hugo Chavez Loves Free Speech... [Archive] - Page 2

6th April 2010, 12:25 AM

I think this is indeed at the core of DC's view of what the State can and cannot do (actually, according to DC, there is very little the State cannot do).

With that simple remark "aslong they spread no false information", implying that the State is allowed to close you down based on its notion of truth (if that was true in the US, Prison Planet, Fox News and Al Jazeera among others would have been closed a long time ago, not to mention satirical news outlets like the Onion, what would the State do about that one?) DC showed that he thinks the State has full dominion and authority on truth, and is all knowlegable, because it has to know the "Truth" to be able to act on it to ensure it is used right and not abused.

Maybe that's why DC won't answer, he can't admit it to himself that this is what he thinks about the role of the State.

Nineteen-eighty-four anyone?

leave your prejudice aside for a moment.

the USA are a shining example of freedom of speech. i think no other country has implemented that so radicaly.

But what would happen if some TV stations would conspire and report false stuff that finally leads to a coup off the elected government?

i think thats what Venezuela tries to prevent with this law.
just like we try to stopp the Nazi and Holocaust denial propaganda by banning it. Instead of confront it and debunk it.

alot if not most other countrys follow a diffrent philosophy in that regard.
one of the point most countrys can learn from the USA.

NWO Sentryman

6th April 2010, 12:28 AM

arent courts a sort of "Ministry of truth"

it all depends on how such institutions are runned.

WTF? :eek:

It is like Animal farm, DC, where anyone who is not for "the revolution" is branded "counter revolutionary. The Pigs and men are hard to distinguish now.

Chavez has been using the "truth" laws to shut down anyone who disagrees with him. it basically runs like this.

critic: says something critical of chavez

Chavez: you lied on national tv, which is now a criminal offence.

critic: who decides what is truth and what is lies?

Chavez: Me.

*cue goons draggong away the critic*

6th April 2010, 12:38 AM

WTF? :eek:

It is like Animal farm, DC, where anyone who is not for "the revolution" is branded "counter revolutionary. The Pigs and men are hard to distinguish now.

Chavez has been using the "truth" laws to shut down anyone who disagrees with him. it basically runs like this.

critic: says something critical of chavez

Chavez: you lied on national tv, which is now a criminal offence.

critic: who decides what is truth and what is lies?

Chavez: Me.

*cue goons draggong away the critic*

Zuloaga was later released, but the judge issued an order preventing from leaving the country while prosecutors proceed with their investigation.

from the linked article.

the Judge decides.

NWO Sentryman

6th April 2010, 03:43 AM

6th April 2010, 03:46 AM

The judge was basing it on laws arranged by Hugo Chavez and his rubber stamp assembly (what else do you call a legislature stuffed with Yes men.) I also see his kangaroo judiciary have been a work as well, ecxecuting his laws.

What a good way of silencing critics though, calling them liars.

yeah Venezuela is one huge conpiracy, everything and everyone is acting like Hugo wants it or they get jailed.

again, Conspiracy Theories are this way ---->

JihadJane

6th April 2010, 03:57 AM

alot if not most other countrys follow a diffrent philosophy in that regard.
one of the point most countrys can learn from the USA.

Information Operations Task Force (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Information_Operations_Task_Force)

6th April 2010, 04:02 AM

Information Operations Task Force (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Information_Operations_Task_Force)

ok, if true, you can say whatever you want in the USA, but have to expect counterpropaganda.

better than jail :)

NWO Sentryman

6th April 2010, 04:03 AM

yeah Venezuela is one huge conpiracy, everything and everyone is acting like Hugo wants it or they get jailed.

again, Conspiracy Theories are this way ---->

*facepalm*

Then Stalinist Russia and Maoist china were all egalitarian societies where their leaders were always benevolent, and critics sought to truly harm the revolution. :rolleyes:

NWO Sentryman

6th April 2010, 04:05 AM

ok, if true, you can say whatever you want in the USA, but have to expect counterpropaganda.

better than jail :)

So anything countering your worldview has to be "counterpropaganda" :rolleyes:, the best way to tar any critic of your ideas. Just say that they are automatically on the other side. Face it, Hugo Chavez is a tyrant and has been using the constitution for fire lighter.

6th April 2010, 04:12 AM

*facepalm*

Then Stalinist Russia and Maoist china were all egalitarian societies where their leaders were always benevolent, and critics sought to truly harm the revolution. :rolleyes:

Venezuela has International observers in elections, have you ever red one of these, or is it just.

i dont like him, its not possible others like him, so nobody freely elects him, he won elections, so he must cheat them..........

his elections are less controversal than Bush's 2 elections......

when you have evidence , please bring it up.

“The Venezuelan voting system possesses a number of features that are in line with the most advanced
international standards of e-voting. In certain aspects, such as the paper trail audit, the system developed in
Venezuela is probably the most advanced system in the world to date.”6
--European Union Election Observation Mission

look here you have a report from the EU that observer Elections, pls point out the cheating.

http://ec.europa.eu/external_relations/human_rights/election_observation/venezuela_2005/final_2005_en.pdf

6th April 2010, 04:13 AM

So anything countering your worldview has to be "counterpropaganda" :rolleyes:, the best way to tar any critic of your ideas. Just say that they are automatically on the other side. Face it, Hugo Chavez is a tyrant and has been using the constitution for fire lighter.

LOL

read the link, i just responded to the link........

face it, you have no clue about Venezuela.

NWO Sentryman

6th April 2010, 04:52 AM

DC, Freedom House and Human Rights watch have pointed out xtreme concerns WRT freedom of the press in Venezuela.

http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=251&year=2009

http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2010/03/25/venezuela-end-prosecutions-dissenters

Hitler won referenda and free elections, as did Nguema, milosevic, and the Axs Japanese Junta, and they were fair and square. does that mean they were good?

as for the venezuela elections, there was a LOT less coverage than 2004 in the US and you ahve not shown anything from 2009. So epic fail.

Skeptic

6th April 2010, 04:54 AM

yeah Venezuela is one huge conpiracy, everything and everyone is acting like Hugo wants it or they get jailed.

If that's the criterion, Stalin, Hitler, Mao and Pol Pot were not really dictators, since some people in their respective countries managed to tell jokes or join the opposition against them and escape jail.

Pardalis

6th April 2010, 10:10 AM

But what would happen if some TV stations would conspire and report false stuff that finally leads to a coup off the elected government?

Usually, coups are not organized solely through and by the media. The media is one expression of it.

Besides, how is a government supposed to discern between good and false information, and what false information is aimed at fueling a "coup"?

Take the Onion for example, it's all deliberate false information. Would you ban it?

This "it could potentially lead to a coup" bullcrap is just an excuse to stifle free speech. It's an easy excuse used by all dictatorships: Ban those who disagree with you and accuse them of fueling unrest and conspiracy to overthrow the gorvernment.

This is exactly what's going on in Venezuela and Iran, and you're condoning it.

just like we try to stopp the Nazi and Holocaust denial propaganda by banning it. Then you are against free speech.

Instead of confront it and debunk it.Since when is the free exchange and free debate of ideas a bad thing?

Are you so afraid of debate that you want the government to stop it before it starts?

I'm not afraid of truthers or Holocaust deniers, I'm confident enough that they can be succesfully debunked with evidence without the government interfering.

alot if not most other countrys follow a diffrent philosophy in that regard.
one of the point most countrys can learn from the USA.You have no idea of what you are saying. You are rejecting the very thing America is all about.

Free speech is paramount in the US. Even unsavory and potentially revolutionary speech is allowed. You on the other hand want to ban it.

Pardalis

6th April 2010, 10:15 AM

What a good way of silencing critics though, calling them liars.

Or accuse them of fomenting a "coup". It's easy.

funk de fino

6th April 2010, 11:03 AM

face it, you have no clue about Venezuela.

That would be you...............

funk de fino

6th April 2010, 11:06 AM

It may be because there is a bigger class division of political support in Venezuela compared to the US?

You assuming it is class based opposition or criticism? You do not know my friends or work colleagues.

I made my case and I think my case supports it. If you disagree with my interpretation that's okay, but you never made much of a response

No, you never, you wrote words with no support. Nothing. Just what you "remembered".

funk de fino

6th April 2010, 11:08 AM

But what would happen if some TV stations would conspire and report false stuff that finally leads to a coup off the elected government?

Glenn Beck.

cornsail

6th April 2010, 11:12 AM

Glenn Beck's crap has lead to a coup?

Pardalis

6th April 2010, 11:13 AM

Glenn Beck's crap has lead to a coup?

Not yet, who knows? It could happen.

It's certainly a good excuse to shut him up.

Skeptic

6th April 2010, 11:23 AM

face it, you have no clue about Venezuela.

How does one say, "I'll have the special and a glass of milk" in Spanish?

cornsail

6th April 2010, 11:46 AM

It may be because there is a bigger class division of political support in Venezuela compared to the US? You assuming it is class based opposition or criticism? You do not know my friends or work colleagues.

Bolded for clarity. If you have friends below the median income level there I'd be surprised, but I haven't made any assumptions outright.

I really don't get what you're arguing for.. That there are not many Chavez supporters in Venezuela?

No, you never, you wrote words with no support. Nothing. Just what you "remembered".

Yup, what I remembered from reading sources. I've re-checked a few sources since then and it appears my memory was accurate.

I'm sorry to see your tone descend back into hostility. You have not asked for a source for anything, nor have you disputed anything specific in the account I put forth despite my requests for you to do so. Not only that, but your own posts haven't been source heavy to say the least.

"I repeat my previous post on this. I do get fed up going through hoops in the past for information that is out there from both sides of the argument only for it to be handwaved or ignored. Sorry if that seems harsh but I have gone though this stuff before and do not have much time left this week before I head to mexico." -funk de fio

"At least you do not descend into the usual "evidence?" single word posts that get increasingly specific and end up as requiring proof to court standards rather than admitting a wrong." -funk de fino

funk de fino

6th April 2010, 03:12 PM

Glenn Beck's crap has lead to a coup?

According to DC spreading false infomation can lead to a coup. Glenn Beck fits this profile.

funk de fino

6th April 2010, 03:20 PM

Bolded for clarity. If you have friends below the median income level there I'd be surprised, but I haven't made any assumptions outright.

Why would you be surprised? Don't you think it is strange that I have met not one Venezuelan who thinks Chavez is the glorious leader those not from Venezuela think he is?

I really don't get what you're arguing for.. That there are not many Chavez supporters in Venezuela?

Try again.

Yup, what I remembered from reading sources. I've re-checked a few sources since then and it appears my memory was accurate.

I'm sorry to see your tone descend back into hostility. You have not asked for a source for anything, nor have you disputed anything specific in the account I put forth despite my requests for you to do so. Not only that, but your own posts haven't been source heavy to say the least.

"I repeat my previous post on this. I do get fed up going through hoops in the past for information that is out there from both sides of the argument only for it to be handwaved or ignored. Sorry if that seems harsh but I have gone though this stuff before and do not have much time left this week before I head to mexico." -funk de fio

"At least you do not descend into the usual "evidence?" single word posts that get increasingly specific and end up as requiring proof to court standards rather than admitting a wrong." -funk de fino

Yet you have brought no sources? You said you made a case, you did not.

Bolded - While you are at it why dont you bring the evidence that RCTV did anything wrong.

Got anything on RCTV

I asked you for evidence.

6th April 2010, 11:30 PM

Usually, coups are not organized solely through and by the media. The media is one expression of it.

Besides, how is a government supposed to discern between good and false information, and what false information is aimed at fueling a "coup"?

Take the Onion for example, it's all deliberate false information. Would you ban it?

This "it could potentially lead to a coup" bullcrap is just an excuse to stifle free speech. It's an easy excuse used by all dictatorships: Ban those who disagree with you and accuse them of fueling unrest and conspiracy to overthrow the gorvernment.

This is exactly what's going on in Venezuela and Iran, and you're condoning it.

Then you are against free speech.

Since when is the free exchange and free debate of ideas a bad thing?

Are you so afraid of debate that you want the government to stop it before it starts?

I'm not afraid of truthers or Holocaust deniers, I'm confident enough that they can be succesfully debunked with evidence without the government interfering.

You have no idea of what you are saying. You are rejecting the very thing America is all about.

Free speech is paramount in the US. Even unsavory and potentially revolutionary speech is allowed. You on the other hand want to ban it.

I especially said, leave away your prejudice about me.

and you didnt, and what happened, you understood my post totaly wrong.

when i talked about the US freedom of Speech, and called it a shining example. that was something positive. i think my country can learn from the USA in that regard. the USA is doing it very good. (this is possitive) i hope you uinderstand unless your prejudice about my anti-americanism........

reread my post and answer again. you have some good points.

6th April 2010, 11:32 PM

6th April 2010, 11:33 PM

That would be you...............

so now you agree that the Elections are cheated.......

you joned the CT fraction?

6th April 2010, 11:38 PM

If that's the criterion, Stalin, Hitler, Mao and Pol Pot were not really dictators, since some people in their respective countries managed to tell jokes or join the opposition against them and escape jail.

when you have evidence , post it.
or go to the CT section.

6th April 2010, 11:40 PM

well false information led to a coup in 2002.
people thought the Chavistas are shooting the non Chavistas, while they didnt, they shot at snipers. this false Information led alot of people in the military to turn against the government.

NWO Sentryman

7th April 2010, 01:58 AM

look, when you claim cheated elections, it is you that has to bring up evidence. not me.
either bring up evidence, or post in the CT section, OK?

Where did i EVER say that chavez rigged elections?

I was talking about freeodm of the press.

And DC, your suggestion that the State WRT venezuelan media should be arbiter of truth is something out of 1984. :eek:

So as long as lying is for the revolution, i guess its okay. :rolleyes:

7th April 2010, 02:01 AM

Where did i EVER say that chavez rigged elections?

I was talking about freeodm of the press.

And DC, your suggestion that the State WRT venezuelan media should be arbiter of truth is something out of 1984. :eek:

So as long as lying is for the revolution, i guess its okay. :rolleyes:

no it isnt

Skeptic

7th April 2010, 05:28 AM

1It's the same old story, isn't it?

Dictator takes over country, jails those who disagree with him, destroys free press, closes down television stations who dare to criticize his policies, changes constitution to allow himself to be re-elected indefinitely (i.e., in effect, declaring himself dictator-for-life), destroys the economy by the usual inefficient, kleptocratic "socialist" nationalization (read: "let me and my close associates steal the assets of foreign companies and move them to Swiss bank accounts"), etc., etc.

The usual gang declares that (because the dictator is a "socialist") that we don't really have evidence he's a complete dictator yet, that they are sure the elections were totally fair and it's so nasty to think otherwise, that the dictator is just executing the "will of the people" and those newspapermen or opposition leaders he arrested surely had it coming for "lying" about him, etc., etc.

The next step is usually claiming that those nasty claims about famine (USSR, China) or genocide (Cambodia) or unapologetic police state (Cuba), etc., are totally exaggerated, due to paranoia and conspiracy theories by right-wing loonies who just hate the thought that socialism has been so wonderfully successful in those countries, and besides, if it is true, it's probably the nasty ol' USA's fault anyway.

We've seen this all before, numerous times. Eventually, the usual gang confesses that they were wrong -- but it usually takes years, and only happens after the lives of millions of ruined, and only when there's some other "socialist" dictator to glorify.

Otherwise, you see, they would have to admit they were wrong and naive yet again about yet another "socialist utopia", which, surprise surprise, turns out to be a corrupt kleptocratic dictatorship; and what are the lives and misery of millions compared to their precious sense of self-importance and being on the "correct" side of history -- that of victorious socialism, as opposed to the evil "late capitalism", which is sure to completely collapse by 1920, I mean 1930, I mean 1960, I mean 1980, I mean 2020, as the world realizes that Russia, I means the USSR, I mean China, I mean the communist Block, I mean Venezuela, is the way of the inevitable just and wonderful future?

7th April 2010, 05:35 AM

funny it is the Capitalist and former President that sold State Companys and was corrupt and stole the people's money. wich then led to violance and coup attempts, wich led to the election of Chavez.......

and about no term limits.

Dictator Angela Merkel is also Dictator for life?

nor do i see Sceptic call Silvio Berlusconi a Dictator for Live.

its only dangerous when its not a capitalist, isnt it?

funk de fino

7th April 2010, 08:11 AM

so now you agree that the Elections are cheated.......

you joned the CT fraction?

No, I have never claimed that even if you want me to It seems to be all you want to talk about.

Try again.

funk de fino

7th April 2010, 08:12 AM

7th April 2010, 08:14 AM

Good god. Stop it with the two wrongs make a right act. It's boring.

you fail as i dont think it is wrong for Italy nor Germany to not have term limits.

try again.

funk de fino

7th April 2010, 08:14 AM

7th April 2010, 08:15 AM

Thats one side of it of course eh?

tell me, what is the other side?

funk de fino

7th April 2010, 08:16 AM

you fail as i dont think it is wrong for Italy nor Germany to not have term limits.

try again.

I do. Try again.

funk de fino

7th April 2010, 08:17 AM

tell me, what is the other side?

Why dont you show me where I claimed stolen elections first?

If you cannot then apologise. Then we can move on.

7th April 2010, 08:17 AM

I do. Try again.

thats your oppinion, its not mine.
i have no problem with Angela nor with Silvio.

7th April 2010, 08:18 AM

Why dont you show me where I claimed stolen elections first?

If you cannot then apologise. Then we can move on.

why change topic? you answered about the events leading to the coup.

whats the other side of it? the Snipers on the roofs?

funk de fino

7th April 2010, 08:19 AM

thats your oppinion, its not mine.
i have no problem with Angela nor with Silvio.

So why mention it in an argument against someone who is against term limits?

Silvio is a bad man. You support him eh?

funk de fino

7th April 2010, 08:21 AM

why change topic? you answered about the events leading to the coup.

whats the other side of it? the Snipers on the roofs?

No, you changed the subject. You made a false claim about me. Take it back and we move on.

7th April 2010, 08:22 AM

So why mention it in an argument against someone who is against term limits?

Silvio is a bad man. You support him eh?

he is a bad man?
not according to the Italian Voters

7th April 2010, 08:24 AM

No, you changed the subject. You made a false claim about me. Take it back and we move on.

cry me a river :)

funk de fino

7th April 2010, 10:19 AM

he is a bad man?
not according to the Italian Voters

Ask his wife. Ask the courts.

funk de fino

7th April 2010, 10:21 AM

cry me a river :)

Scared to move past it and act like a grown up? Think I may prove you wrong again?

Just bring anything where I have claimed the election was stolen. It seems all you have now is to make up false arguments?

Pardalis

7th April 2010, 11:31 AM

I especially said, leave away your prejudice about me.

It's not prejudice, I'm commenting on what you say.

If you don't like it say something else.

and you didnt, and what happened, you understood my post totaly wrong.
Yes I did. You want to ban dissident media on the pathetic pretext that they could lead to "a coup".

That's the excuse every dictator use.

cornsail

7th April 2010, 01:04 PM

Why would you be surprised? Don't you think it is strange that I have met not one Venezuelan who thinks Chavez is the glorious leader those not from Venezuela think he is?

Try again.

This is a typical response from you. Vaguely pointing to me being wrong about something while conveying the minimum amount of information possible. You could have explained what your point was or something, but it seems you prefer to be evasive/difficult. Try again? No thanks.

I asked you for evidence.

As I've explained to you multiple times, you responded that some of my account was accurate and other parts were exaggerated. Whenever I ask you to specify which parts you think are exaggerated you refuse. It would have taken you like 30 seconds assuming you actually knew what you were talking about, but instead you give responses like:

"Look, I am not spelling everything out for you."

"I repeat my previous post on this. I do get fed up going through hoops in the past for information that is out there from both sides of the argument only for it to be handwaved or ignored. Sorry if that seems harsh but I have gone though this stuff before and do not have much time left this week before I head to mexico."

I'm not going to do a bunch of work finding evidence for you when:
A. I don't even know which parts you want evidence for and which parts you agree with since you won't tell me.
B. You've been consistently lazy and unhelpful in your own responses. You've told me to do my own research and expressed a negative opinion over people who excessively ask for evidence.

My job is not to prove anything to you. I stated clearly that my account is my understanding based on the sources I've read. Never did I say "this is definitely what happened" or anything that requires a high degree of evidence. It was also my hope that you'd correct me on anything I had wrong, but so far that hasn't happened (which slightly ups my confidence about its accuracy).

With that I'll bring our exchange to a close. Cheers, man.

cornsail

7th April 2010, 01:12 PM

Information Operations Task Force (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Information_Operations_Task_Force)

Was this intended to show that America is not an exemplary example of free speech? I don't see what it has to do with free speech at all, even if it is sort of interesting.

The US has the freest speech in the world, or close to it. Definitely more than Canada, for example.

Praktik

7th April 2010, 01:18 PM

/derail double-edged sword though, at least without the puritannical approach to free speech of our southern neighbours we are more able to regulate election spending... since "money = speech" hasn't really flown up here...

cornsail

7th April 2010, 01:26 PM

I disagree with money = speech. I was referring to things more along the level of banning Holocaust denial.

funk de fino

7th April 2010, 04:19 PM

This is a typical response from you. Vaguely pointing to me being wrong about something while conveying the minimum amount of information possible. You could have explained what your point was or something, but it seems you prefer to be evasive/difficult. Try again? No thanks.

You did not come across as someone who would miss a schoolboy point but it seems I was wrong. I have travelled all over the word in the last 20 years to many, many countries. Venezuela is about the only country where I have only met people who are critical of the glorious leader they have at that time. That strikes me as strange. It's also sad that some of them were wary of doing so as they had suffered persecution in the past for being openly (or in some cases forced into the open) in opposition to him and did not want the same fate. I find it sad that he can intimidate people like that. Do you? Do you think voting for Chavez and actually supporting him may be different things altogether?

Even in Libya there was a mix of people in support and against our friend Gadaffi. Again the opposition voices were hushed.

As I've explained to you multiple times, you responded that some of my account was accurate and other parts were exaggerated. Whenever I ask you to specify which parts you think are exaggerated you refuse. It would have taken you like 30 seconds assuming you actually knew what you were talking about, but instead you give responses like:

"Look, I am not spelling everything out for you."

"I repeat my previous post on this. I do get fed up going through hoops in the past for information that is out there from both sides of the argument only for it to be handwaved or ignored. Sorry if that seems harsh but I have gone though this stuff before and do not have much time left this week before I head to mexico."

I'm not going to do a bunch of work finding evidence for you when:
A. I don't even know which parts you want evidence for and which parts you agree with since you won't tell me.
B. You've been consistently lazy and unhelpful in your own responses. You've told me to do my own research and expressed a negative opinion over people who excessively ask for evidence.

So when you said I did not ask you for sources you were wrong?

My job is not to prove anything to you. I stated clearly that my account is my understanding based on the sources I've read. Never did I say "this is definitely what happened" or anything that requires a high degree of evidence. It was also my hope that you'd correct me on anything I had wrong, but so far that hasn't happened (which slightly ups my confidence about its accuracy).

With that I'll bring our exchange to a close. Cheers, man.

No sources then? I couldnt have asked excessively as you seemed to completely have forgotten about it.

PS My account would be based on sources I've read. Funny that eh?

Skeptic

7th April 2010, 09:25 PM

So he was arrested not because Chavez is a dictator, but because he's a "counterrevolutionary".

Yeah, right.

Just like, oh, a few tens of millions of other "counterrevolutionaries" dictators arrested...

7th April 2010, 10:52 PM

It's not prejudice, I'm commenting on what you say.

If you don't like it say something else.

Yes I did. You want to ban dissident media on the pathetic pretext that they could lead to "a coup".

That's the excuse every dictator use.

wrong again.

No i think its not a good way, but i can understand it somehow.

Pardalis

10th April 2010, 09:15 PM

No i think its not a good way, but i can understand it somehow.

How considerate of you. I wonder why you let him off the hook so easily.

cornsail

11th April 2010, 05:47 PM

I find it sad that he can intimidate people like that. Do you?

Yes I find intimidation sad, although I'm obviously not familiar with the stories of the people you know there.

Do you think voting for Chavez and actually supporting him may be different things altogether?

No. The elections are anonymous.

So when you said I did not ask you for sources you were wrong?

No.

funk de fino

11th April 2010, 06:53 PM

Yes I find intimidation sad, although I'm obviously not familiar with the stories of the people you know there.

Correct.

No. The elections are anonymous.

And for the people forever labeled "opposition" and persecuted they are guaranteed this how?

Is campaigning and supporting opposition parties anonymous? Do you think they feel no danger in being in opposition based on previous actions of the govt? Do you think abominations like the Tascon List and the Maisanta database may give them cause to hesitate?

No.

Really? I did not ask you for evidence? Thats strange because I distinctly remember posting my quotes where I did. You're not playing semantic games now are you?

You have not asked for a source for anything
While you are at it why dont you bring the evidence that RCTV did anything wrong.

How clear did you need that to be?

funk de fino

11th April 2010, 07:12 PM

Skeptic

11th April 2010, 08:44 PM

For praise and also criticism this report is from the OAS, who are the go to guys from those who say elections are fair in venezuela. Only now they are critical Chavez refuses to let them in the country.

Apparently the useful idiots were useful enough for Chavez: they were suckered into declaring his election fair, so that other useful idiots will quote this "fact" in perpetuity.

Now they are no longer needed, and are in fact a burden to him, since actually looking into human rights affairs in Venezuela will make Chavez look bad, so he naturally refuses them entry.

In short, the usual useful idiots were suckered into supporting the budding dictator and are now discarded.

Standard operating procedure for "socialist" dictators, standard stupidity for the useful idiots.

cornsail

11th April 2010, 09:17 PM

And for the people forever labeled "opposition" and persecuted they are guaranteed this how?

Is campaigning and supporting opposition parties anonymous? Do you think they feel no danger in being in opposition based on previous actions of the govt? Do you think abominations like the Tascon List and the Maisanta database may give them cause to hesitate?

You asked if I thought voting for Chavez means supporting him (as I interpreted it). My answer is yes. Campaigning is a different question, although certainly not an unimportant one.

Really? I did not ask you for evidence? Thats strange because I distinctly remember posting my quotes where I did. You're not playing semantic games now are you?

I never interpreted you as asking me for a source. I gave you a reasonable and detailed answer to this complaint a couple posts ago and you completely ignored the substance of it.

While you are at it why dont you bring the evidence that RCTV did anything wrong.
How clear did you need that to be?

I honestly don't see that as a request for a source. When we ask for sources, it's usually in respect to some particular claim.

I posted the things I thought RCTV did wrong and why I thought they were wrong earlier in the thread. You never indicated that you agreed with me about them being wrong, in fact it seemed to me that you were arguing the opposite if anything. So was I to bring the evidence that my subjective opinion was right? Or was I to clear up some source of factual dispute? If so was I to guess which claims of the many you secretly thought was inaccurate? I told you repeatedly that if you wanted to discuss the accuracy of the account you would have to tell me which parts you thought were correct and which parts you thought were exaggerated. You refused repeatedly. Given the context, a line like "While you are at it why dont you bring the evidence that RCTV did anything wrong." just comes off as empty twaddle.

Any other questions?

funk de fino

12th April 2010, 06:18 AM

You asked if I thought voting for Chavez means supporting him (as I interpreted it). My answer is yes. Campaigning is a different question, although certainly not an unimportant one.

You still dont get it. Voting for him does not necessarily mean they support him. It means they are in fear of voting the other way.

I never interpreted you as asking me for a source. I gave you a reasonable and detailed answer to this complaint a couple posts ago and you completely ignored the substance of it.

That is rubbish. When someone asks you of evidence for your claims it means they want a source. All you had to do was say "Sorry I missed that". Your reply was a whine about me not supplying sources.

I honestly don't see that as a request for a source. When we ask for sources, it's usually in respect to some particular claim.

See above, get real.

I posted the things I thought RCTV did wrong and why I thought they were wrong earlier in the thread. You never indicated that you agreed with me about them being wrong, in fact it seemed to me that you were arguing the opposite if anything. So was I to bring the evidence that my subjective opinion was right? Or was I to clear up some source of factual dispute? If so was I to guess which claims of the many you secretly thought was inaccurate? I told you repeatedly that if you wanted to discuss the accuracy of the account you would have to tell me which parts you thought were correct and which parts you thought were exaggerated. You refused repeatedly. Given the context, a line like "While you are at it why dont you bring the evidence that RCTV did anything wrong." just comes off as empty twaddle.

So I have to produce evidence and sources first or you pretend I havent asked? That makes this easy eh? You bring the sources and we discuss them. If you dont it's just waffle and the same goes for me.

Any other questions?

Yes, have you read the report I linked to? Especially the part about the presidential broadcasts. Unfortunately for the Chavista this cannot be dismissed as a political attack.

PS - That's a source.

cornsail

12th April 2010, 09:04 AM

You still dont get it. Voting for him does not necessarily mean they support him. It means they are in fear of voting the other way.

No, I get that this is your view. I just happen to disagree with it, for reasons stated earlier.

That is rubbish. When someone asks you of evidence for your claims it means they want a source.

In my view, a source for "RCTV did something wrong" only becomes relevant once there is a factual dispute over something that we both agree would be "wrong" had it actually happened. I didn't interpret your vague statement "bring the evidence that RCTV did anything wrong" as a request for a source, since there was no factual dispute and "wrongness" has a component of subjectivity to it. I provided you with my argument that RCTV had acted wrongly based on my understanding of what their actions had been along with an invitation to dispute any of the factual details. Had you done so, I would have seen this as a request for a source, but you explicitly declined. If you meant you wanted a source, sorry, but I didn't read it that way and you had ample opportunity to specify what you wanted a source for.

All you had to do was say "Sorry I missed that". Your reply was a whine about me not supplying sources.

I didn't miss it. And your reading comprehension is way off if you think my reply was a whine about you not supplying sources.

As I've explained to you multiple times, you responded that some of my account was accurate and other parts were exaggerated. Whenever I ask you to specify which parts you think are exaggerated you refuse. It would have taken you like 30 seconds assuming you actually knew what you were talking about, but instead you give responses like:

"Look, I am not spelling everything out for you."

Asking you to clarify which parts you disagree with is not asking you to supply a source.

I'm not going to do a bunch of work finding evidence for you when:
A. I don't even know which parts you want evidence for and which parts you agree with since you won't tell me.
B. You've been consistently lazy and unhelpful in your own responses. You've told me to do my own research and expressed a negative opinion over people who excessively ask for evidence.

A. is same as above. B. was not about you not providing sources, but about you declining to answer questions.

So I have to produce evidence and sources first or you pretend I havent asked?

No. See above.

Yes, have you read the report I linked to? Especially the part about the presidential broadcasts. Unfortunately for the Chavista this cannot be dismissed as a political attack.

PS - That's a source.

I'll give it a read when I get time (I'm a graduate student and don't have a ton of free time). From skimming it, it does seem to indicate some serious problems.

As I've said I'm not a Chavez fan or a Chavez hater (there are things I like and dislike about him). It's certainly possible that he's worse than my current understanding, though, and I do have interest in learning more on the subject.

funk de fino

12th April 2010, 10:26 AM

No, I get that this is your view. I just happen to disagree with it, for reasons stated earlier

Well I have actual knowledge of it from people in that situation. I guess you don't? They have stated they will never again vote against him. They hate him. It's not so much about what happen now when you vote but what happened previously and what could happen in future. I am very lucky I never find myself in this predicament.

In my view, a source for "RCTV did something wrong" only becomes relevant once there is a factual dispute over something that we both agree would be "wrong" had it actually happened. I didn't interpret your vague statement "bring the evidence that RCTV did anything wrong" as a request for a source, since there was no factual dispute and "wrongness" has a component of subjectivity to it. I provided you with my argument that RCTV had acted wrongly based on my understanding of what their actions had been along with an invitation to dispute any of the factual details. Had you done so, I would have seen this as a request for a source, but you explicitly declined. If you meant you wanted a source, sorry, but I didn't read it that way and you had ample opportunity to specify what you wanted a source for.

BS, you made claims and then couldnt bring any evidence even when I asked. Then you tried to say I didn't ask. There was a dispute. You were claiming all sorts about the coup and RCTV actions. About why they were taken off air. You supplied nothing to back this up when asked.

I didn't miss it. And your reading comprehension is way off if you think my reply was a whine about you not supplying sources

Go back and read it. You quoted this from me.

"I repeat my previous post on this. I do get fed up going through hoops in the past for information that is out there from both sides of the argument only for it to be handwaved or ignored. Sorry if that seems harsh but I have gone though this stuff before and do not have much time left this week before I head to mexico."

When I posted this it was to say that I did not have the time or the inclination at that point to bring a load of stuff to refute something that you pulled out your arse.

Asking you to clarify which parts you disagree with is not asking you to supply a source.

See above

A. is same as above. B. was not about you not providing sources, but about you declining to answer questions.

And you have declined to bring your sources.

No. See above.

It's not difficult. Bring your sources and we can discuss them. I will bring mine.

I'll give it a read when I get time (I'm a graduate student and don't have a ton of free time). From skimming it, it does seem to indicate some serious problems.

As I've said I'm not a Chavez fan or a Chavez hater (there are things I like and dislike about him). It's certainly possible that he's worse than my current understanding, though, and I do have interest in learning more on the subject.

Frankly the criticism in this report shocked even me. They are not normally against him. Once he realised this was to be an accurate assessment, he stopped them getting in the country. Believe me, there is only one reason I am anti Chavez and it is not political ideology like some here. It's the experiences of friends and colleagues and also in more recent times my company experiences.

cornsail

12th April 2010, 01:50 PM

Well I have actual knowledge of it from people in that situation. I guess you don't?

Rhetorical question? I don't know anyone in Venezuela, no. You asked for my opinion and I gave it.

BS, you made claims and then couldnt bring any evidence even when I asked.

I guess that's your interpretation.

You were claiming all sorts about the coup and RCTV actions. About why they were taken off air. You supplied nothing to back this up when asked.

I don't read "why don't you bring the evidence that RCTV did anything wrong" as a request to back up any specific claim. Even if it was intended that way, you were invited to clarify which points you regardedas inaccurate almost directly afterward (to which you refused repeatedly), so you have no room to complain.

Go back and read it. You quoted this from me.

So? It was an example of your responses when I tried to ask for clarification on which bits you disagreed with. How you read that response and thought it was about me complaining that you didn't provide sources I have no idea. You just misread it.

When I posted this it was to say that I did not have the time or the inclination at that point to bring a load of stuff to refute something that you pulled out your arse.

I didn't ask you for a load of stuff or even for a refutation. I asked you a very simple question. Simply which parts you thought were exaggerated when you said "some parts are right and some are exaggerated" (paraphrase).

It's not difficult. Bring your sources and we can discuss them. I will bring mine.

Actually, it is difficult when you won't specify what you need sources for.

funk de fino

12th April 2010, 07:07 PM

Actually, it is difficult when you won't specify what you need sources for.

Evidence they carried out actions that warranted being accused of organizing the coup by Chavez that led to you apparently thinking it was OK to take them off air then cable many years later for.

You know, the claims you made about them.

12th April 2010, 11:37 PM

Evidence they carried out actions that warranted being accused of organizing the coup by Chavez that led to you apparently thinking it was OK to take them off air then cable many years later for.

You know, the claims you made about them.

well well, why dont you proof this was the reason they lost their licence?

official reasion is, they did not renew it, they needed the frequencies.

you claim something else, so its you that needs to backup YOUR claim.

funk de fino

13th April 2010, 06:35 AM

well well, why dont you proof this was the reason they lost their licence?

official reasion is, they did not renew it, they needed the frequencies.

You do know I am talking about two things dont you?

Did you read the report I linked earlier? Try it.

you claim something else, so its you that needs to backup YOUR claim.

Once again you run from things and try and deflect eh?

funk de fino

13th April 2010, 06:52 AM

Here is my claim. They were taken off cable and satellite in Jan 2010 for refusing to show Chavez speeches. Read the report I linked and see if you think this is acceptable.

13th April 2010, 07:15 AM

Here is my claim. They were taken off cable and satellite in Jan 2010 for refusing to show Chavez speeches. Read the report I linked and see if you think this is acceptable.

not a good idea to violate the law.

13th April 2010, 08:09 AM

Here is my claim. They were taken off cable and satellite in Jan 2010 for refusing to show Chavez speeches. Read the report I linked and see if you think this is acceptable.

they can get back on cabel once they register as National TV station, and follow the Venezuelan laws. for example do they have to tell the viewers before every programm, for what age the programm is, the same we have in switzerland. also do they have to show like every other National TV station the Presidental speeches when this is demanded by the government.

they belived they can escape those rules by going to Miami, but that didnt work out.

its ok for me :)

13th April 2010, 08:12 AM

and also the other stations that were turned off by conatel, can come back once they deliver the missing documents. TV Chile and 2 US stations.

13th April 2010, 08:24 AM

"We applied the law. If they don't follow it, they won't be allowed back on the air."

the same is the case in my country, it isnt in the UK?

funk de fino

13th April 2010, 10:42 AM

they can get back on cabel once they register as National TV station, and follow the Venezuelan laws. for example do they have to tell the viewers before every programm, for what age the programm is, the same we have in switzerland. also do they have to show like every other National TV station the Presidental speeches when this is demanded by the government.

they belived they can escape those rules by going to Miami, but that didnt work out.

its ok for me :)

Did you read the report? Do you feel it is accepable that the govt can dictate at ay time that channelsshow their propoganda and Alo Presidente? Do you think it is acceptable for them to make a channel show 7 hours of govt speeches?

If you think so then that is very sad.

funk de fino

13th April 2010, 10:47 AM

"We applied the law. If they don't follow it, they won't be allowed back on the air."

the same is the case in my country, it isnt in the UK?

No, the govt cannot dictate that the stations show govt speeches anytime they want. The only laws governing airtime are for during election campaigns where all parties are guaranteed airtime. Are the opposition guaranteed airtime in Venezuela?

What would happen in Switzerland if the stations were forced to show so many govt speeches as RCTV would be? The law is only for specific things in Venezuela not just for any old speeches or his programs. Read the report. its all in there.

dudalb

13th April 2010, 10:52 AM

So Chavez is truning out to be just another Latin American "EL Presidente" type. Only difference between him and the others is his use of Marxist rhetoric.

funk de fino

13th April 2010, 10:54 AM

Article 192 of the Organic Law on Telecommunications provides the following:

Without prejudice to the legal provisions applicable to matters of security and defense, the President of the Republic may, either directly or through the National Telecommunications Commission, order operators of subscription television services, using their customer information channel, and the operators of open-to-air radio television broadcasters, to carry, free of charge, messages and official addresses made by the President or Vice-President of the Republic or cabinet ministers. Regulations shall be established to determine the mechanisms, limitations, and other features of these transmissions and broadcasts. Publicity by public entities is not subject to the obligation established in this article

the large number of blanket government broadcasts in the media. Blanket broadcasts force media stations to cancel their regular programming and transmit information as ordered by the government. Many of them were of a duration and frequency that could be considered abusive in light of the information they conveyed, not always intended to serve the public interest

Additionally, the information received indicates that in 2008, communications media had transmitted 186 blanket broadcasts (172 hours and 55 minutes), while in July of 2009, there were 75 messages broadcast (88 hours and 19 minutes). The information also shows that on January 13, 2009, the longest blanket broadcast of the period of 1999-2009 was aired, equivalent to 7 hours and 34 minutes. Such figures do not include the transmission of the program Aló Presidente, the ten minutes daily for governmental messages imposed by the Law on Social Responsibility in Radio and Television, or the official publicity that is typical in television or radio

He is also trying to get this to apply to international channels.

The lack of control in the exercise of this power could degrade the legitimate purpose of this mechanism, converting it into a tool for propaganda. Already in the Joint Declaration of 2003 of the Special Rapporteurs for Freedom of Expression, it was clearly established that “[m]edia outlets should not be required by law to carry messages from specified political figures, such as the president.

NWO Sentryman

13th April 2010, 12:33 PM

So Chavez is truning out to be just another Latin American "EL Presidente" type. Only difference between him and the others is his use of Marxist rhetoric.

What about support for terrorists like FARC or mass murderers like Idi Amin?

Or is that what the evil capitalist propaganda model wants us to think?

Praktik

13th April 2010, 12:52 PM

So by that standard Im sure you're out there complaining about the documented links (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colombian_parapolitics_scandal) between the Colombian government and the terrorist antagonists of the FARC, the paras?

Or is that just what the left wing propagandists want us to think?

Yes yes, I'm being snide. Just wondering why the myopia on Colombia and FARC being the only murderous thugs being called out...

cornsail

13th April 2010, 07:34 PM

The US has supported many brutal murderers and oppressive leaders. For instance, Sadam Hussein, Suharto, the Saudis, Diem, and so on. And we still do. I'm not saying two wrongs make a right, but I don't think verbal praise for FARC and a deceased dictator is much of a criticism... especially if you claim to support the United States, which seems to be your usual stance. Unfortunately our politics is very PR and speech obsessed, as opposed to action-focused. If you compare someone to a Nazi or say something positive about an unliked figure you may be in trouble, but if you give Sadam a bunch of chemical and biological weapons few will take notice.

WildCat

13th April 2010, 08:16 PM

I don't think verbal praise for FARC and a deceased dictator is much of a criticism...
What about the hundreds of millions of dollars in military aid to FARC? :rolleyes:

WildCat

13th April 2010, 08:18 PM

If you compare someone to a Nazi or say something positive about an unliked figure you may be in trouble, but if you give Sadam a bunch of chemical and biological weapons few will take notice.
Who gave Saddam chemical and biological weapons? And what biological weapons did Saddam have? :rolleyes:

Skeptic

13th April 2010, 09:32 PM

Long experience in this forum shows that whenever someone starts with "But the USA did eeeeeeeeeeeevil things too!", it's equivalent to "yes, I was an idiot for thinking yet another dictator is a 'man of the people' because he claims to be a 'socialist'".

cornsail

13th April 2010, 09:58 PM

You consider the US's support of murderers evil then?

BTW, I don't consider verbal praise of a dead murderer evil, just distasteful.

WildCat

13th April 2010, 10:06 PM

Who gave Saddam chemical and biological weapons? And what biological weapons did Saddam have? :rolleyes:
Cornsail?

13th April 2010, 11:21 PM

Did you read the report? Do you feel it is accepable that the govt can dictate at ay time that channelsshow their propoganda and Alo Presidente? Do you think it is acceptable for them to make a channel show 7 hours of govt speeches?

If you think so then that is very sad.

you have any evidence that they show Alo presidente, you have any evidence they force the channels to show more than 60 Minutes per week?

your claims contradict my information

http://www.heise.de/tp/blogs/8/146964

State's Access to Free and Obligatory Spaces
The government has limited access to the airwaves for announcements of national significance. These spaces shall not exceed 60 weekly minutes or 15 daily minutes. The organization in charge of communications and information will determine the time and frequency of these spaces, granting users 10 minutes out of the 60 weekly minutes as a guarantee of access to service providers.

http://www.rethinkvenezuela.com/downloads/medialaw.htm

13th April 2010, 11:22 PM

No, the govt cannot dictate that the stations show govt speeches anytime they want. The only laws governing airtime are for during election campaigns where all parties are guaranteed airtime. Are the opposition guaranteed airtime in Venezuela?

What would happen in Switzerland if the stations were forced to show so many govt speeches as RCTV would be? The law is only for specific things in Venezuela not just for any old speeches or his programs. Read the report. its all in there.

doe UK TV stations have to follow the UK laws?

13th April 2010, 11:23 PM

What about support for terrorists like FARC or mass murderers like Idi Amin?

Or is that what the evil capitalist propaganda model wants us to think?

you got evidence?

13th April 2010, 11:24 PM

What about the hundreds of millions of dollars in military aid to FARC? :rolleyes:

Evidence?

McHrozni

14th April 2010, 12:06 AM

http://www.rethinkvenezuela.com/downloads/medialaw.htm

From their web site:
The VIO receives funding from the government of Venezuela.

Do you have something independent? I mean I find it hardly surprising that Venezuelan government would want it's policies praised, and only praised. From this perspective, any US government source is considered far more reliable.

McHrozni

14th April 2010, 12:19 AM

14th April 2010, 12:30 AM

From their web site:
The VIO receives funding from the government of Venezuela.

Do you have something independent? I mean I find it hardly surprising that Venezuelan government would want it's policies praised, and only praised. From this perspective, any US government source is considered far more reliable.

McHrozni

Television and radio stations would be obliged to transmit the government’s educational, informative or public safety broadcasts for up to 60 minutes a week.

http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2004/11/23/venezuela-media-law-undercuts-freedom-expression

McHrozni

14th April 2010, 03:01 AM

http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2004/11/23/venezuela-media-law-undercuts-freedom-expression

The title of the article, also seen in your link, is:

Venezuela: Media Law Undercuts Freedom of Expression

A few snips:

“This legislation severely threatens press freedom in Venezuela,” said José Miguel Vivanco, Americas director at Human Rights Watch.

[snip]

These provisions violate international standards protecting free expression.

[snip]

Several of the norms are ill-defined and subjective, and stations that infringe them would be subject to tough penalties.

[snip]

Television and radio stations would be obliged to transmit the government’s educational, informative or public safety broadcasts for up to 60 minutes a week. This is in addition to the president’s powers under article 192 of the Telecommunications Act (introduced in 2000 by the government of President Hugo Chávez) to order stations to transmit in full his speeches and other political messages. Such an obligation is an illegitimate interference in editorial freedom.

Would you please explain how come your own source directly contradicts what you're saying, and why did you not copy the highly relevant part of the paragraph? That's the part I put in bold, in case you're wondering.

Perhaps I should rephrase my challenge:
Could you please come up with an independent source that is in agreement with your claims?

McHrozni

14th April 2010, 05:28 AM

The title of the article, also seen in your link, is:

Venezuela: Media Law Undercuts Freedom of Expression

A few snips:

“This legislation severely threatens press freedom in Venezuela,” said José Miguel Vivanco, Americas director at Human Rights Watch.

[snip]

These provisions violate international standards protecting free expression.

[snip]

Several of the norms are ill-defined and subjective, and stations that infringe them would be subject to tough penalties.

[snip]

Television and radio stations would be obliged to transmit the government’s educational, informative or public safety broadcasts for up to 60 minutes a week. This is in addition to the president’s powers under article 192 of the Telecommunications Act (introduced in 2000 by the government of President Hugo Chávez) to order stations to transmit in full his speeches and other political messages. Such an obligation is an illegitimate interference in editorial freedom.

Would you please explain how come your own source directly contradicts what you're saying, and why did you not copy the highly relevant part of the paragraph? That's the part I put in bold, in case you're wondering.

Perhaps I should rephrase my challenge:
Could you please come up with an independent source that is in agreement with your claims?

McHrozni

what is my claim? and what is the contradiction?

McHrozni

14th April 2010, 07:02 AM

what is my claim? and what is the contradiction?

It wasn't so much of a claim as it was a challenge:
you have any evidence that they show Alo presidente, you have any evidence they force the channels to show more than 60 Minutes per week?

Contradiction:

You quoted this article:
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2004/11/23/venezuela-media-law-undercuts-freedom-expression

Containing this paragraph:
Television and radio stations would be obliged to transmit the government’s educational, informative or public safety broadcasts for up to 60 minutes a week. This is in addition to the president’s powers under article 192 of the Telecommunications Act (introduced in 2000 by the government of President Hugo Chávez) to order stations to transmit in full his speeches and other political messages. Such an obligation is an illegitimate interference in editorial freedom.

And I do think I should stress this part:
This is in addition to the president’s powers under article 192 of the Telecommunications Act (introduced in 2000 by the government of President Hugo Chávez) to order stations to transmit in full his speeches and other political messages.

Therefore your own source already fulfills your challenge, and your implicit claim that Hugo isn't forcing TV stations to transmit his BS. I'm tempted to put you under stundies, really.

McHrozni

14th April 2010, 07:05 AM

It wasn't so much of a claim as it was a challenge:
you have any evidence that they show Alo presidente, you have any evidence they force the channels to show more than 60 Minutes per week?

Contradiction:

You quoted this article:
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2004/11/23/venezuela-media-law-undercuts-freedom-expression

Containing this paragraph:
Television and radio stations would be obliged to transmit the government’s educational, informative or public safety broadcasts for up to 60 minutes a week. This is in addition to the president’s powers under article 192 of the Telecommunications Act (introduced in 2000 by the government of President Hugo Chávez) to order stations to transmit in full his speeches and other political messages. Such an obligation is an illegitimate interference in editorial freedom.

And I do think I should stress this part:
This is in addition to the president’s powers under article 192 of the Telecommunications Act (introduced in 2000 by the government of President Hugo Chávez) to order stations to transmit in full his speeches and other political messages.

Therefore your own source already fulfills your challenge, and your implicit claim that Hugo isn't forcing TV stations to transmit his BS. I'm tempted to put you under stundies, really.

McHrozni

my source did not contain any evidence, just claims.
but when the source is anti chavez, that seems to be not important at all.
but when the source is pro chavez, it gets rejected just because its pro chavez.

14th April 2010, 07:17 AM

and your implicit claim that Hugo isn't forcing TV stations to transmit his BS.

thats not true at all. they are forced, the debate is about how often and how long.

McHrozni

14th April 2010, 07:19 AM

my source did not contain any evidence, just claims.

Oh so you're saying your own source is unreliable and should be ignored?

but when the source is anti chavez, that seems to be not important at all.

Of course it's not if you recommend it as a source. Either you agree it is a legitimate source of information, or you don't use it as a source. But you can't say there are some sentences that you agree with in a source and ignore the rest - that's cherry picking, and exactly what you did.

but when the source is pro chavez, it gets rejected just because its pro chavez.

See above. Oh, and:
(...) over recent years, the Venezuelan government appears to have established a pattern of clamping down on dissent through the use of legislative and administrative methods to silence and harrass critics (...)

(...) Laws are being used to justify what essentially seem to be politically motivated charges (...)

(...) the Venezuelan government is deliberately targeting opponents.

(...) the three police commissioners, Ivan Simonovis, Lazaro Forero and Henry Vivas (...) are political prisoners because they oppose President Chavez (...)

Source?
http://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/5261

Cherry-picking and quote-mining is not very difficult at all. Yet it seems you only approve of it if an "anti-Chavez" source such as Human rights watch. Why is that? Please explain, I'm dying to know.

McHrozni

McHrozni

14th April 2010, 07:20 AM

thats not true at all. they are forced, the debate is about how often and how long.

According to Human rights watch, the whole thing is quite extensive. Do you consider them a reliable source of information? ;)

McHrozni

14th April 2010, 07:25 AM

According to Human rights watch, the whole thing is quite extensive. Do you consider them a reliable source of information? ;)

McHrozni

i would if they would backup their claims with a source or atleast more detailed information.

14th April 2010, 07:28 AM

Oh so you're saying your own source is unreliable and should be ignored?

Of course it's not if you recommend it as a source. Either you agree it is a legitimate source of information, or you don't use it as a source. But you can't say there are some sentences that you agree with in a source and ignore the rest - that's cherry picking, and exactly what you did.

See above. Oh, and:
(...) over recent years, the Venezuelan government appears to have established a pattern of clamping down on dissent through the use of legislative and administrative methods to silence and harrass critics (...)

(...) Laws are being used to justify what essentially seem to be politically motivated charges (...)

(...) the Venezuelan government is deliberately targeting opponents.

(...) the three police commissioners, Ivan Simonovis, Lazaro Forero and Henry Vivas (...) are political prisoners because they oppose President Chavez (...)

Source?
http://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/5261

Cherry-picking and quote-mining is not very difficult at all. Yet it seems you only approve of it if an "anti-Chavez" source such as Human rights watch. Why is that? Please explain, I'm dying to know.

McHrozni

i have brought up the best source about the law i could find. you rejected it because they get money from the Government. but i cant find any other source that would provide detailed information about the laws in question. Just claims without backup.

14th April 2010, 07:49 AM

so i must go for another few days.

60 minutes per week max. not very good, but i think acceptable, should be only for emergencys in my oppinion.

a 7 hour alo presidente on all channels? no way acceptable, but just not following the law is also not smart. but for this i first have to see evidence.

but at the end, its up to the venezuelan voters.

McHrozni

14th April 2010, 08:00 AM

i have brought up the best source about the law i could find. you rejected it because they get money from the Government. but i cant find any other source that would provide detailed information about the laws in question. Just claims without backup.

Obviously the said law is not the only problem with the lack of media freedom in Venezuela.

That said, there is absolutely nothing in that article that would qualify as evidence, only claims. There are a total of four (4) citations on the bottom, near as I can tell all having to do with taking cheap shots against the US.

60 minutes per week max. not very good, but i think acceptable, should be only for emergencys in my oppinion.

Oh sure, just like the Roman republic, that was in a "state of emergency" between 44 B.C. to 476 A.D.

Again, slowly so you have a chance in understanding: the said law is not, repeat, not, the only reason media freedom is endangered in Venezuela. It is one of the reasons.

but at the end, its up to the venezuelan voters.

Which are, in the meantime, continuously bombarded with government messages about the evils of the opposition and the exploits of Hugo the Great. Do you really think there is adequate room for a democratic debate in the light of all the evidence presented?

McHrozni

funk de fino

14th April 2010, 08:43 AM

Who gave Saddam chemical and biological weapons? And what biological weapons did Saddam have? :rolleyes:

It certainly wasnt the US or the UK. I saw numbers and language on military hardware in Iraq and it was eastern eurpopean. We were made to carry BATS tablet and got injections as they thought he may have biological weapons. As far as i know they never found any.

cornsail

14th April 2010, 09:05 AM

Who gave Saddam chemical and biological weapons? And what biological weapons did Saddam have? :rolleyes:

Sorry WildCat, I meant to take you off ignore sooner.

The weapons were sold by the Reagan and Bush sr. administrations with extensive financial credits. They included anthrax and nerve gas. You may be aware of the attack that took place against the Kurds using these agents? Like I said few people took notice and your question w/ the eye roll seems to be an example of that.

funk de fino

14th April 2010, 09:06 AM

you have any evidence that they show Alo presidente, you have any evidence they force the channels to show more than 60 Minutes per week?

your claims contradict my information

http://www.heise.de/tp/blogs/8/146964

http://www.rethinkvenezuela.com/downloads/medialaw.htm

Yes, my link to the report proves muy claims. See my post and read it next time. It might stop you making a fool of yourself.

funk de fino

14th April 2010, 09:11 AM

doe UK TV stations have to follow the UK laws?

Does that nakes the laws right? You have just proved that Chavez is not following the law and showing too much programming. Well done.

Does the oppositon get equal airtime? There are no such laws in the UK except for election times and emergencies.

funk de fino

14th April 2010, 09:18 AM

thats not true at all. they are forced, the debate is about how often and how long.

http://cidh.org/countryrep/Venezuela2009eng/VE09.TOC.eng.htm

I have given a link to a report by a part of the OAS which states this

Additionally, the information received indicates that in 2008, communications media had transmitted 186 blanket broadcasts (172 hours and 55 minutes), while in July of 2009, there were 75 messages broadcast (88 hours and 19 minutes). The information also shows that on January 13, 2009, the longest blanket broadcast of the period of 1999-2009 was aired, equivalent to 7 hours and 34 minutes. Such figures do not include the transmission of the program Aló Presidente, the ten minutes daily for governmental messages imposed by the Law on Social Responsibility in Radio and Television, or the official publicity that is typical in television or radio

The OAS are not anti Chavez.

funk de fino

14th April 2010, 09:24 AM

Which are, in the meantime, continuously bombarded with government messages about the evils of the opposition and the exploits of Hugo the Great. Do you really think there is adequate room for a democratic debate in the light of all the evidence presented?

McHrozni

And bear in mind. RCTV were one of the few nationwide stations prior to 2007 that reached a huge amount of the population. Globo does not. There is even less opposition media outaside Globo viewing areas.

WildCat

14th April 2010, 05:03 PM

Evidence?
$300 million to FARC (http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKN1847378420080518):
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez must explain documents found on Colombian rebel computers that Washington and Bogota charge show deep ties between the leftist leader and the guerrillas, a top U.S. official said.

And (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704754604575095291011683812.html):
Spain and Venezuela headed toward a potential diplomatic face-off after a Spanish judge on Monday accused Caracas of collaborating with rebel groups to assassinate Colombian President Álvaro Uribe and other top political figures.

Spanish National Court Judge Eloy Velasco alleged Monday that the Venezuelan government had collaborated with Basque separatist group ETA and Colombia's main guerrilla group in a plot against leaders living in or traveling to Spain that began in late 2003.

..."There is evidence…showing the cooperation of the Venezuelan government in the illegal collaboration between FARC and ETA," according to the indictment.

WildCat

14th April 2010, 05:05 PM

Sorry WildCat, I meant to take you off ignore sooner.

The weapons were sold by the Reagan and Bush sr. administrations with extensive financial credits. They included anthrax and nerve gas. You may be aware of the attack that took place against the Kurds using these agents? Like I said few people took notice and your question w/ the eye roll seems to be an example of that.
Absolute, 100% nonsense.

I guess that's why you've provided no evidence.

Oh well, it's a derail anyway.

funk de fino

14th April 2010, 06:26 PM

$300 million to FARC (http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKN1847378420080518):

He knows this because I schooled him on it before.

WildCat

14th April 2010, 07:03 PM

He knows this because I schooled him on it before.
DC has a conveniently bad memory when it suits him.

Skeptic

14th April 2010, 09:19 PM

Once more, the Chavez supporters were shown to be, as usual, useful idiots who fell for the "socialist" rhetoric of yet another typical Latin-American-Politics El Presidente type.

Having been proven suckers again, they try to change the subject to the sure-fire "let's blame the USA for something". But even if the USA was the worst nation in the history of the world, that is simply irrelevant to the issue of whether Chavez is a dictator or not.

The truth is, he obviously is, and nobody except those naive enough to believe his ridiculous "socialist" rhetoric, of the same sort used by every left-leaning dictator, couldn't see it.

The reaction towards Chavez is a classic example of the old saying, "there are none so blind as those who would not see".

Skeptic

14th April 2010, 09:22 PM

Sorry WildCat, I meant to take you off ignore sooner.

I like it when people put you on "ignore" and then keep TELLING you you're on their "ignore" list, apparently in an attempt to shame you into changing your mind.

cornsail

14th April 2010, 10:56 PM

I said he was just going to be on for a week after Captain Sassy vouched for him as being a good poster. I didn't notice he'd been asking me questions until I saw him quoted.

cornsail

14th April 2010, 11:25 PM

Absolute, 100% nonsense.

I guess that's why you've provided no evidence.

Oh well, it's a derail anyway.

http://www.gulfwarvets.com/arison/banking.htm

The Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs has oversight responsibility for the Export Administration Act. Pursuant to the Act, Committee staff contacted the U.S. Department of Commerce and requested information on the export of biological materials during the years prior to the Gulf War. After receiving this information, we contacted a principal supplier of these materials to determine what, if any, materials were exported to Iraq which might have contributed to an offensive or defensive biological warfare program. Records available from the supplier for the period from 1985 until the present show that during this time, pathogenic (meaning "disease producing"), toxigenic (meaning "poisonous"), and other biological research materials were exported to Iraq pursuant to application and licensing by the U.S. Department of Commerce. Records prior to 1985 were not available, according to the supplier. These exported biological materials were not attenuated or weakened and were capable of reproduction. According to the Department of Defense's own Report to Congress on the Conduct of the Persian Gulf War, released in April 1992:

"By the time of the invasion of Kuwait, Iraq had developed biological weapons. It's advanced and aggressive biological warfare program was the most advanced in the Arab world... The program probably began late in the 1970's and concentrated on the development of two agents, botulinum toxin and anthrax bacteria... Large scale production of these agents began in 1989 at four facilities near Baghdad. Delivery means for biological agents ranged >from simple aerial bombs and artillery rockets to surface-to-surface missiles." (53)

Included in the approved sales are the following biological materials (which have been considered by various nations for use in war), with their associated disease symptoms: (54)

Bacillus Anthracis: anthrax is a disease-producing bacteria identified by the Department of Defense in The Conduct of the Persian Gulf War: Final Report to Congress, as being a major component in the Iraqi biological warfare program.

Anthrax is an often-fatal infectious disease due to ingestion of spores. It begins abruptly with high fever, difficulty in breathing, and chest pain. The disease eventually results in septicemia (blood poisoning), and the mortality is high. Once septicemia is advanced, antibiotic therapy may prove useless, probably because the exotoxins remain, despite the death of the bacteria.

Clostridium Botulinum: a bacterial source of botulinum toxin, which causes vomiting, constipation, thirst, general weakness, headache, fever, dizziness, double vision, dilation of the pupils and paralysis of the muscles involving swallowing. It is often fatal.

Histoplasma Capsulatum: causes a disease superficially resembling tuberculosis that may cause pneumonia, enlargement of the liver and spleen, anemia, an influenza-like illness and an acute inflammatory skin disease marked by tender red nodules, usually on the shins. Reactivated infection usually involves the lungs, the brain, spinal membranes, heart, peritoneum, and the adrenals.

Brucella Melitensis: a bacteria which can cause chronic fatigue, loss of appetite, profuse sweating when at rest, pain in joints and muscles, insomnia, nausea, and damage to major organs.

Clostridium Perfringens: a highly toxic bacteria which causes gas gangrene. The bacteria produce toxins that move along muscle bundles in the body killing cells and producing necrotic tissue that is then favorable for further growth of the bacteria itself. Eventually, these toxins and bacteria enter the bloodstream and cause a systemic illness.

In addition, several shipments of Escherichia Coli (E.Coli) and genetic materials, as well as human and bacterial DNA, were shipped directly to the Iraq Atomic Energy Commission.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/12/31/world/main534798.shtml

...
The [Washington Post] says a review of a large tranche of government documents reveals that the administrations of President Reagan and the first President Bush both authorized providing Iraq with intelligence and logistical support, and okayed the sale of dual use items — those with military and civilian applications — that included chemicals and germs, even anthrax and bubonic plague.
...

15th April 2010, 02:37 AM

Obviously the said law is not the only problem with the lack of media freedom in Venezuela.

That said, there is absolutely nothing in that article that would qualify as evidence, only claims. There are a total of four (4) citations on the bottom, near as I can tell all having to do with taking cheap shots against the US.

Oh sure, just like the Roman republic, that was in a "state of emergency" between 44 B.C. to 476 A.D.

Again, slowly so you have a chance in understanding: the said law is not, repeat, not, the only reason media freedom is endangered in Venezuela. It is one of the reasons.

Which are, in the meantime, continuously bombarded with government messages about the evils of the opposition and the exploits of Hugo the Great. Do you really think there is adequate room for a democratic debate in the light of all the evidence presented?

McHrozni

Its not like the opposition isnt using propaganda and rethoric, that is the political climate in Venezuela, its both sides.
and rethoric will not make poor people happy, they also need results, and according to the Venezuelan voters, they got that.

15th April 2010, 02:38 AM

Yes, my link to the report proves muy claims. See my post and read it next time. It might stop you making a fool of yourself.

so claims from another source are now evidence?

15th April 2010, 02:41 AM

Does that nakes the laws right? You have just proved that Chavez is not following the law and showing too much programming. Well done.

Does the oppositon get equal airtime? There are no such laws in the UK except for election times and emergencies.

nothing has been proven, alot claims from both side has been brought up, but no evidence so far.

even if they are forced to show every sunday a 7 hour marathon of Chavez rhetoric, that still leaves alot time for the oppositional propaganda and rhetoric.

there are also in the UK telecommunication laws, and when you dont follow those, you get in trouble.

15th April 2010, 02:42 AM

$300 million to FARC (http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKN1847378420080518):

And (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704754604575095291011683812.html):

and was this "evidence" ever presented ? no. and interpol was looking if the laptop was manipulated, and didnt find anything, nothing about the evidence itself, no word of what it shows or proofs.

and

Spanish National Court Judge Eloy Velasco alleged Monday that the Venezuelan government had collaborated with Basque separatist group ETA and Colombia's main guerrilla group in a plot against leaders living in or traveling to Spain that began in late 2003.

15th April 2010, 02:46 AM

I like it when people put you on "ignore" and then keep TELLING you you're on their "ignore" list, apparently in an attempt to shame you into changing your mind.

yeah like calling them Usefull idiots....

in comparison to you, im atleast usefull.

McHrozni

15th April 2010, 03:26 AM

Its not like the opposition isnt using propaganda and rethoric, that is the political climate in Venezuela, its both sides.

Oh, certainly, but only one side is using the law as an excuse to stifle the other side. Notice how I didn't actually complain about the rhetoric, but about abuses of power by your hero, Hugo Chavez.

and rethoric will not make poor people happy

You'd be very surprised by how much can constant bombardment with false information change your opinion. Chavez knows this, and uses it to further his own power.

they also need results, and according to the Venezuelan voters, they got that.

If you ignore certain aspects, of course, such as the before mentioned constant bombardment of people with one-sided information by the government, persecution of opposition figures, abusing the power of state organs to force votes, vote-buying schemes among the poor, etc.

Do you really think the Venezuelan voters are free to choose their best candidate, based on unbiased, freely available information on all candidates?

McHrozni

McHrozni

15th April 2010, 03:32 AM

even if they are forced to show every sunday a 7 hour marathon of Chavez rhetoric, that still leaves alot time for the oppositional propaganda and rhetoric.

Except that the private TV station still needs to live on something, so it needs to spend a good amount of time and money on programs that will attract audience and on ads, that will generate revenue.

there are also in the UK telecommunication laws, and when you dont follow those, you get in trouble.

Wait, you're saying because UK has telecommunication laws that must be followed, all Venezuelan telecommunication laws should be followed, no matter how unfair they are?

Suppose Venezuela would pass a law mandating anyone who doesn't vote for Chavez is to be killed immediately. Since UK also has election laws, would upholding this law be also necessary, according to you?

McHrozni

15th April 2010, 04:12 AM

Oh, certainly, but only one side is using the law as an excuse to stifle the other side. Notice how I didn't actually complain about the rhetoric, but about abuses of power by your hero, Hugo Chavez.

You'd be very surprised by how much can constant bombardment with false information change your opinion. Chavez knows this, and uses it to further his own power.

If you ignore certain aspects, of course, such as the before mentioned constant bombardment of people with one-sided information by the government, persecution of opposition figures, abusing the power of state organs to force votes, vote-buying schemes among the poor, etc.

Do you really think the Venezuelan voters are free to choose their best candidate, based on unbiased, freely available information on all candidates?

McHrozni

what false information is he spreading?

who is a better candidate than Chavez? the Opposition isnt bringing up solutions nor a real alternative.
i personaly hope the Bolivarian movement finds a socialist alternative to Chavez, one that is more like Lula, and less like Chavez. but it seems the Venezuelans want a guy like Chavez.

15th April 2010, 04:15 AM

Except that the private TV station still needs to live on something, so it needs to spend a good amount of time and money on programs that will attract audience and on ads, that will generate revenue.

Wait, you're saying because UK has telecommunication laws that must be followed, all Venezuelan telecommunication laws should be followed, no matter how unfair they are?

Suppose Venezuela would pass a law mandating anyone who doesn't vote for Chavez is to be killed immediately. Since UK also has election laws, would upholding this law be also necessary, according to you?

McHrozni

unfair laws should be chelleanged and they should use the democratic tools they have to change them, but just not following them was never a good idea.

McHrozni

15th April 2010, 05:18 AM

what false information is he spreading?

That he's not abusing power, for one?

who is a better candidate than Chavez?

At this point almost anyone would be the better choice.

i personaly hope the Bolivarian movement finds a socialist alternative to Chavez, one that is more like Lula, and less like Chavez. but it seems the Venezuelans want a guy like Chavez.

Why do you ignore all the points made before? Just because the guy wins an election doesn't mean the people want him. If he's abusing the state apparatus to ensure his reelection and is able to scrape 55% or so, do you honestly believe he would almost certainly win a free and fair election?

unfair laws should be chelleanged and they should use the democratic tools they have to change them, but just not following them was never a good idea.

Unconstitutional laws can be ignored in an civilized society. Of course, the problem in Venezuela is also that Chavez and his clique have already rewritten the constitution to their bidding. This too is one of the hallmarks of dictatorship.

McHrozni

funk de fino

15th April 2010, 06:35 AM

so claims from another source are now evidence?

You should read it.

funk de fino

15th April 2010, 06:39 AM

nothing has been proven, alot claims from both side has been brought up, but no evidence so far.

even if they are forced to show every sunday a 7 hour marathon of Chavez rhetoric, that still leaves alot time for the oppositional propaganda and rhetoric.

there are also in the UK telecommunication laws, and when you dont follow those, you get in trouble.

Read the report, it has sources. It is a report from the OAS, an orgnaisation who set up the IAHR as a independent organisation. If you believe the claims they are reporting are untrue then you have to refute them not just cry about it.

You claimed it was only 60 mins a week and you were wrong. Your defence of this is pathetic. Who cares about the UK, you are making a two wrongs make a right argument and not even getting that right. Show me where there is a law forcing TV companies in the UK to show govt propoganda whenever they want to.

funk de fino

15th April 2010, 06:41 AM

and was this "evidence" ever presented ? no. and interpol was looking if the laptop was manipulated, and didnt find anything, nothing about the evidence itself, no word of what it shows or proofs.

I have been through that report with you before. I proved your claims wrong on that.

funk de fino

15th April 2010, 06:43 AM

Of course, the problem in Venezuela is also that Chavez and his clique have already rewritten the constitution to their bidding. This too is one of the hallmarks of dictatorship.

McHrozni

More than once.

McHrozni

15th April 2010, 06:59 AM

More than once.

Yeah, good point. We should add against the wishes of the people expressed in a referendum for good measure.

McHrozni

15th April 2010, 09:24 AM

That he's not abusing power, for one?

At this point almost anyone would be the better choice.

Why do you ignore all the points made before? Just because the guy wins an election doesn't mean the people want him. If he's abusing the state apparatus to ensure his reelection and is able to scrape 55% or so, do you honestly believe he would almost certainly win a free and fair election?

Unconstitutional laws can be ignored in an civilized society. Of course, the problem in Venezuela is also that Chavez and his clique have already rewritten the constitution to their bidding. This too is one of the hallmarks of dictatorship.

McHrozni

the new constitution is a big step forward, and it was not Chavez and his clique, it was a constitutional assembly formed by a popular referendum.

according to the groups that watched the elections, they are free and fair.
or are the Eu and US groups also in on it?

he has won several free and fair elections, no matter how many times you want to claim they are not. those claims belong in the CT subforum.

when he is not the guy they want, why would they elect him, and even confirm him in his office.

15th April 2010, 09:25 AM

I have been through that report with you before. I proved your claims wrong on that.

what? the interpol did not judge the evidence, they merely searched for doctored stuff, and didnt find any. but they even pointed out that their job is not judging the files if they are evidence or not, their job was to find altered files and didnt find any.

15th April 2010, 09:27 AM

Yeah, good point. We should add against the wishes of the people expressed in a referendum for good measure.

McHrozni

what was against the will of the people?

funk de fino

15th April 2010, 09:45 AM

according to the groups that watched the elections, they are free and fair.
or are the Eu and US groups also in on it?

One of those US groups is the OSA. You have just handwaved a report from one of their sub committees. Are they OK to use or not?

funk de fino

15th April 2010, 09:47 AM

what? the interpol did not judge the evidence, they merely searched for doctored stuff, and didnt find any. but they even pointed out that their job is not judging the files if they are evidence or not, their job was to find altered files and didnt find any.

Take it to the other thread where I made a fool of you on it. The computers were evidence that you asked for in support of Wildcats accusations.

funk de fino

15th April 2010, 09:48 AM

what was against the will of the people?

Some of the package of reforms on the referendum that was voted down, were then passed by special decree.

15th April 2010, 09:48 AM

Read the report, it has sources. It is a report from the OAS, an orgnaisation who set up the IAHR as a independent organisation. If you believe the claims they are reporting are untrue then you have to refute them not just cry about it.

You claimed it was only 60 mins a week and you were wrong. Your defence of this is pathetic. Who cares about the UK, you are making a two wrongs make a right argument and not even getting that right. Show me where there is a law forcing TV companies in the UK to show govt propoganda whenever they want to.

it contains claims, and its not up to me to disprove them, its up to them to prove them.

you should have learned that in the 9/11 CT section.

15th April 2010, 09:49 AM

Take it to the other thread where I made a fool of you on it. The computers were evidence that you asked for in support of Wildcats accusations.

not according to the Interpol.........

The verification of the eight seized FARC computer exhibits by INTERPOL does not imply
the validation of the accuracy of the user files, the validation of any country’s interpretation
of the user files or the validation of the source of the user files. It is well established that for
law enforcement purposes, factual findings concerning the truth or accuracy of the content of
any item of evidence are made in the context of a judicial process at the national or
international level and/or by a specially appointed commission with jurisdiction over the
matter in dispute.
In addition to this public report, INTERPOL has provided a classified technical report to the
Colombian authorities in conformity with the Technical Assistance Agreement. This
classified report includes electronic copies of all of the user files on the eight seized FARC
computer exhibits. It also contains a detailed comparison of 18 documents provided by
Colombia to the two INTERPOL experts as hard copies and 41 additional documents given
in electronic format.
Finally, INTERPOL’s CompFor IRT has identified a number of issues with regard to the
conduct of international computer forensic examinations and with regard to the handling of
electronic evidence by law enforcement officials, especially those who are the first to
respond to a crime scene. These issues are not only directly relevant to Colombia but also for
law enforcement officers in all of INTERPOL’s 186 member countries. Addressing them
effectively requires INTERPOL and its member countries to develop a number of initiatives
which are explained in detail in Part 6 (“Recommendations for INTERPOL and its member
countries”) of this report.

http://www.interpol.int/Public/ICPO/PressReleases/PR2008/pdfPR200817/Default.asp

funk de fino

15th April 2010, 09:50 AM

it contains claims, and its not up to me to disprove them, its up to them to prove them.

you should have learned that in the 9/11 CT section.

So are you saying they are lying about how much broadcasts were shown by the govt?

You ask for sources and evidence and then you just handwave it away. The report has sources. You have to prove those soures are no good. I backed up my claims. You have to disprove them. If you cannot then my claims stand.

funk de fino

15th April 2010, 09:52 AM

not according to the Interpol.........

http://www.interpol.int/Public/ICPO/PressReleases/PR2008/pdfPR200817/Default.asp

Off topic. There is another thread. Take it there, we have been through this before.

reported.

15th April 2010, 09:52 AM

One of those US groups is the OSA. You have just handwaved a report from one of their sub committees. Are they OK to use or not?

you decide, there are also reports from EU commissions.

15th April 2010, 09:53 AM

Off topic. There is another thread. Take it there, we have been through this before.

reported.

yeah because it makes a fool of you.
you cant be wrong eh, and especially you cant admit it.

15th April 2010, 09:54 AM

So are you saying they are lying about how much broadcasts were shown by the govt?

You ask for sources and evidence and then you just handwave it away. The report has sources. You have to prove those soures are no good. I backed up my claims. You have to disprove them. If you cannot then my claims stand.

more claims are not evidence.

funk de fino

15th April 2010, 09:56 AM

you decide, there are also reports from EU commissions.

I do not care. I am not accusing them of bias. You are. You have to prove my claims wrong. You cannot.

Go read the report and look at the sources. OAS is not anti Chavez.

funk de fino

15th April 2010, 09:58 AM

more claims are not evidence.

I have supported my claims with a report and sources. You have handwaved it and given nothing except an incorrect claim about 60 mins and forgot about Article 192.

Please prove my sources wrong or my claims stand.

15th April 2010, 09:59 AM

I do not care. I am not accusing them of bias. You are. You have to prove my claims wrong. You cannot.

Go read the report and look at the sources. OAS is not anti Chavez.

no i made no claims other than they did not bring up evidence, just claims.

but i am expected to accept claims as evidence here. thats a bit odd, especially on a sceptics forum.

15th April 2010, 10:00 AM

I have supported my claims with a report and sources. You have handwaved it and given nothing except an incorrect claim about 60 mins and forgot about Article 192.

Please prove my sources wrong or my claims stand.

well i didnt claims its not true what they claim, it contradicts other claims. and i didnt find any evidence on both sides.

on the other hand you claim now that the 60 minutes limit is incorrect, evidence for this?

funk de fino

15th April 2010, 10:00 AM

yeah because it makes a fool of you.
you cant be wrong eh, and especially you cant admit it.

I can admit when I am wrong. Sad thing is you can never show me to be wrong. I showed you up in the other thread about the arms spending and it took you many posts to admit you made a mistake.

Prove my claims wrong about excessive presidential broadcasts and I will admit I am wrong.

15th April 2010, 10:03 AM

I can admit when I am wrong. Sad thing is you can never show me to be wrong. I showed you up in the other thread about the arms spending and it took you many posts to admit you made a mistake.

Prove my claims wrong about excessive presidential broadcasts and I will admit I am wrong.

did Interpol confirm the accuracy of the evidence or did they just search for altered files on the electronic devices found?

funk de fino

15th April 2010, 10:05 AM

well i didnt claims its not true what they claim, it contradicts other claims. and i didnt find any evidence on both sides.

It does not contradict other claims. Those are different things. I have given you evidence and sources for my clams. You have nothing to disporve them.

on the other hand you claim now that the 60 minutes limit is incorrect, evidence for this?

Even the quote I gave you explains that. This is two different things we are talking bout. Please try and keep up. The 60 mins is seperate to the article 192 stuff.

Additionally, the information received indicates that in 2008, communications media had transmitted 186 blanket broadcasts (172 hours and 55 minutes), while in July of 2009, there were 75 messages broadcast (88 hours and 19 minutes). The information also shows that on January 13, 2009, the longest blanket broadcast of the period of 1999-2009 was aired, equivalent to 7 hours and 34 minutes. Such figures do not include the transmission of the program Aló Presidente, the ten minutes daily for governmental messages imposed by the Law on Social Responsibility in Radio and Television, or the official publicity that is typical in television or radio

funk de fino

15th April 2010, 10:07 AM

Here is the report for the Presidential Broadcasts that was part of the sources for the IAHR report

http://en.rsf.org/IMG/pdf/Cadenas-2.pdf

15th April 2010, 10:08 AM

It does not contradict other claims. Those are different things. I have given you evidence and sources for my clams. You have nothing to disporve them.

Even the quote I gave you explains that. This is two different things we are talking bout. Please try and keep up. The 60 mins is seperate to the article 192 stuff.

you sourced your claims yes, but your source does not prove their claims.

15th April 2010, 10:10 AM

Here is the report for the Presidential Broadcasts that was part of the sources for the IAHR report

http://en.rsf.org/IMG/pdf/Cadenas-2.pdf

and non of the candenas were longer than 60 minutes........., no 7 hour alo presidente......

funk de fino

15th April 2010, 10:15 AM

and non of the candenas were longer than 60 minutes......... not even longer than 50 minutes, no 7 hour alo presidente......

You did not read the full report did you? You just looked at the first page. Many of them were over 3 hours.

Thats an EPIC fail. I never claimed a 7 hours Alo Presidete so stop with the lies.

My claims stand I have supported them. Try if you can, to disprove them. It helps if you read things I give you it would help you to stop making embarrassing mistakes.

funk de fino

15th April 2010, 10:17 AM

you sourced your claims yes, but your source does not prove their claims.

Yes they do. Please bring anything you have that shows my claims are wrong.

funk de fino

15th April 2010, 10:27 AM

Promedio minutos por cadenas = Average minutes per cadenas

ha ha ha ha ha

This is Article 192

Article 192 of the Organic Law on Telecommunications provides the following:

Without prejudice to the legal provisions applicable to matters of security and defense, the President of the Republic may, either directly or through the National Telecommunications Commission, order operators of subscription television services, using their customer information channel, and the operators of open-to-air radio television broadcasters, to carry, free of charge, messages and official addresses made by the President or Vice-President of the Republic or cabinet ministers. Regulations shall be established to determine the mechanisms, limitations, and other features of these transmissions and broadcasts. Publicity by public entities is not subject to the obligation established in this article

Regulations and limitations?

Where are those?

60 mins is from the link to the other Social Responsibility thing you gave. Two different things.

Article 10 of the Law on Social Responsibility

15th April 2010, 10:36 AM

Promedio minutos por cadenas = Average minutes per cadenas

ha ha ha ha ha

This is Article 192

Article 192 of the Organic Law on Telecommunications provides the following:

Regulations and limitations?

Where are those?

60 mins is from the link to the other Social Responsibility thing you gave. Two different things.

well im confussed. i dont know whos claims are correct or not.

15th April 2010, 10:40 AM

where is the full telecommunication laws in english? can find them only in spanish.

funk de fino

15th April 2010, 10:54 AM

well im confussed. i dont know whos claims are correct or not.

It's because you only read the front page and not the whole report. That is very very sad. If you give me something I will read it all. That was a total schoolboy mistake there mate. The report has timings for each broadcast. He made three in one day.

where is the full telecommunication laws in english? can find them only in spanish.

Try a translator for pages.

15th April 2010, 01:36 PM

Try a translator for pages.

yeah they work so wunderfully for complex text.... :rolleyes:

funk de fino

15th April 2010, 02:28 PM

yeah they work so wunderfully for complex text.... :rolleyes:

It might work for the front page only. That seems to be all you ever read anyway ;););)

WildCat

15th April 2010, 10:06 PM

http://www.gulfwarvets.com/arison/banking.htm

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/12/31/world/main534798.shtml
That's nice, but you claimed the US sold actual chemical and biological weapons to Iraq, not medical and pharmaceutical devices that could be used for other things.

And how many of these biological weapons existed? IIRC the number found post-invasion was... zero.

McHrozni

16th April 2010, 03:21 AM

did Interpol confirm the accuracy of the evidence or did they just search for altered files on the electronic devices found?

According to Interpol:

INTERPOL found no evidence that user files were created, modified
or deleted on any of the eight seized FARC computer exhibits following their
seizure on 1 March 2008 by Colombian authorities.

(...)

Taking into account all of the above and based on a comprehensive forensic examination, INTERPOL’s experts conclude that no user files have been created, modified or deleted on any of the eight FARC computer exhibits following their seizure on 1 March 2008.

You seem to think that a forensic has to ensure the information he has is accurate. That is false - he needs to investigate what was sent to him for investigation. If fake evidence was sent to the forensics they are not at fault for giving erroneous findings.

There are three options:
- the laptops were not seized from FARC at all, but rather created by Colombian authorities prior to their seizure on March 1st 2008
- FARC was framing Venezuela by having fake information on their computers
- the information is accurate

Interpols' findings cannot distinguish between these three options, nor should they be expected to.

McHrozni

16th April 2010, 03:31 AM

According to Interpol:

INTERPOL found no evidence that user files were created, modified
or deleted on any of the eight seized FARC computer exhibits following their
seizure on 1 March 2008 by Colombian authorities.

(...)

Taking into account all of the above and based on a comprehensive forensic examination, INTERPOL’s experts conclude that no user files have been created, modified or deleted on any of the eight FARC computer exhibits following their seizure on 1 March 2008.

You seem to think that a forensic has to ensure the information he has is accurate. That is false - he needs to investigate what was sent to him for investigation. If fake evidence was sent to the forensics they are not at fault for giving erroneous findings.

There are three options:
- the laptops were not seized from FARC at all, but rather created by Colombian authorities prior to their seizure on March 1st 2008
- FARC was framing Venezuela by having fake information on their computers
- the information is accurate

Interpols' findings cannot distinguish between these three options, nor should they be expected to.

McHrozni

Interpol checked if the device send to them by the Colombia government contained manipulated data and if they handled the devices according to the rules for handling electronic evidence.

and like Interpol said, they did not conclude if the information and data on those devices are evidence against Venezuela. this must be done by a court for example.
Interpol themself pointed it out in the report.

so now we have to wait until this data is used and confirmed in court.
sofar we know no manipulation has been found and the devices have been mostly handled correct, and the part where it wasnt perfectly handled did not show any wrongdoing or manipulation.

But we do not know what this evidence says. and interpol did not look into that.

that was and is my point.

Skeptic

16th April 2010, 09:49 AM

That's nice, but you claimed the US sold actual chemical and biological weapons to Iraq, not medical and pharmaceutical devices that could be used for other things.

And how many of these biological weapons existed? IIRC the number found post-invasion was... zero.

So the evil USA sent Iraq biological and chemical weapons, AND the poor innocent Iraq never had such weapons and the evil USA just fabricated the charges against the "leader of the sovereign nation of Iraq" (the guy who killed everybody who opposed him as he made the country into his and his family's personal concentration camp, that is.)

I wish they'd make up their mind.

cornsail

16th April 2010, 10:58 AM

That's nice, but you claimed the US sold actual chemical and biological weapons to Iraq, not medical and pharmaceutical devices that could be used for other things.

You are correct in pointing out the error of my phrasing. They were sold pathogenic agents which were developed into weapons. However, considering Sadam Hussein was a Stalinesque murderous dictator hostile to both a neighboring country and his own people, it's hardly a big surprise what he wanted the anthrax, nerve agents, etc. for. So yes, the sale was of the weapon ingredients, not the final products.

Also, it wasn't just the US doing this, but European countries.

And how many of these biological weapons existed? IIRC the number found post-invasion was... zero.

Ask the Kurds or the Iranians. Just because he didn't have them post-invasion doesn't mean he never had them.

McHrozni

16th April 2010, 11:04 AM

and like Interpol said, they did not conclude if the information and data on those devices are evidence against Venezuela. this must be done by a court for example.
Interpol themself pointed it out in the report.

This is obviously because a forensic is not the person to decide what goes into a court and what doesn't. That's what the prosecutor or defender are for.

so now we have to wait until this data is used and confirmed in court.

No. Evidence is evidence if it was used in court or if it wasn't. Evidence that was used in court is the only evidence that can establish a legally binding settlement, but evidence that was not (yet) used in court points to a certain event and the guilt of a certain party regardless.

I must say I find your attempts at shifting goalposts rather pathetic.

McHrozni

cornsail

16th April 2010, 11:07 AM

So the evil USA sent Iraq biological and chemical weapons, AND the poor innocent Iraq never had such weapons and the evil USA just fabricated the charges against the "leader of the sovereign nation of Iraq" (the guy who killed everybody who opposed him as he made the country into his and his family's personal concentration camp, that is.)

I wish they'd make up their mind.

Uhhhhh, what? Please point me to where I've ever said "the poor innocent Iraq never had such weapons" or anything remotely close to that.

For that matter, I doubt you can find anyone on this forum who's claimed either that Iraq (at the regime level) was "innocent" or that they never had chemical/biological weapons.

Such a blatant strawman.

funk de fino

16th April 2010, 01:59 PM

Ask the Kurds or the Iranians. Just because he didn't have them post-invasion doesn't mean he never had them.

How would they know? Have you any proof that biological agents were used agsinst either?

As far as I know the moron used chemical weapons against them. Biological weapons are a whole different ball game. Take it from someone who had the injections to prove it. As far as I know they never used any biological weapons even though he could have.

cornsail

16th April 2010, 05:39 PM

As far as I know the moron used chemical weapons against them.

I'm not versed in the distinction between chemical and biological weapons since there's a lot of overlap, hence my (somewhat lazily) lumping the two together. But you're right, he used chemical weapons on them.

Archer17

16th April 2010, 09:45 PM

I'm not versed in the distinction between chemical and biological weapons since there's a lot of overlap, hence my (somewhat lazily) lumping the two together. But you're right, he used chemical weapons on them.
Easy way to differentiate between your basic biological and chemical weaponry:

Chemical - think chemicals. Your closet probably has all you need to make yourself a passable chemical weapon. Mine did, but after posting this I got rid of everything. ;)

Biological - think nasty microorganisms. While rather simplistic (and gross), your snot-rag is an example of this insideous WMD. Countries that dabble in this usually are a lot more inventive with their pathogenic organisms, but it all comes down to this ---> little buggers that are meant to kill you.

:)

McHrozni

17th April 2010, 01:00 AM

I'm not versed in the distinction between chemical and biological weapons since there's a lot of overlap

Emmm, no. There is no overlap at all. It's an entirely different technology. The only similarity is that both will kill people (and other living stuff, depending on what is used) and not damage the infrastructure.

McHrozni

McHrozni

17th April 2010, 01:03 AM

Your closet probably has all you need to make yourself a passable chemical weapon. Mine did, but after posting this I got rid of everything. ;)

Reading some of the warning labels can give you enough information to make a poison gas (which would be very basic and probably non-lethal, unless you used a gas chamber or something). :)

McHrozni

17th April 2010, 02:57 AM

This is obviously because a forensic is not the person to decide what goes into a court and what doesn't. That's what the prosecutor or defender are for.

No. Evidence is evidence if it was used in court or if it wasn't. Evidence that was used in court is the only evidence that can establish a legally binding settlement, but evidence that was not (yet) used in court points to a certain event and the guilt of a certain party regardless.

I must say I find your attempts at shifting goalposts rather pathetic.

McHrozni

my point is still, we dont know what this alleged evidence says.
you guys want to use evidence while you have no clue what the evidence is saying or even proofs. maybe they find out it is not evidence against the Venezuelan Government.

one side claims to have evidence, and only a court will find out if that is actualy correct.

your attempt here is pathetic.

someone claims to have evidence and sofar we only know the data on those devices that are claimed to contain evidence was not manipulated, or even more precise, no manipulation has been found. but sure the anti Venezuela crowd jumps to the claim and says, look they have evidence.

thats like a 9/11 truther claiming look Dr. Jones has found evidence for thermite. but you dont know what his "research" actually says.

when it comes to Venezuela you are a real CT.

McHrozni

17th April 2010, 07:45 AM

my point is still, we dont know what this alleged evidence says.
you guys want to use evidence while you have no clue what the evidence is saying or even proofs. maybe they find out it is not evidence against the Venezuelan Government.

one side claims to have evidence, and only a court will find out if that is actualy correct.

So you only believe evidence if it was established in court? Or am I misunderstanding something here?

someone claims to have evidence and sofar we only know the data on those devices that are claimed to contain evidence was not manipulated, or even more precise, no manipulation has been found. but sure the anti Venezuela crowd jumps to the claim and says, look they have evidence.

You're basically saying that Colombians lied and the information contained within the said unaltered files don't show Venezuela gave $300 million to FARC, then? That no such information is present in the data?

thats like a 9/11 truther claiming look Dr. Jones has found evidence for thermite. but you dont know what his "research" actually says.

Except, of course, that there are legitimate reasons for Colombia to withhold the said information from the general public - not telling FARC (and Venezuela) exactly what they know is a significant advantage to them in any further attempts to seize their funding.

Moreover, a $300 million transfer of funds or resources in that value from a would-be socialist tin pot dictator in an oil rich country to a neighboring socialist guerrillas fighting the government of his neighboring enemy state is a tad more likely than a nonsensical, impossible, overly complex plot to demolish the WTC.

when it comes to Venezuela you are a real CT.

Well, either Colombia seized some computers from FARC, demonstrated it didn't alter any files, and then lied about the information contained in the files; or Chavez supports his ideological allies in a neighboring, hostile state.
You're saying the second option is the CT?

McHrozni

cornsail

17th April 2010, 08:37 AM

Emmm, no. There is no overlap at all. It's an entirely different technology. The only similarity is that both will kill people (and other living stuff, depending on what is used) and not damage the infrastructure.

McHrozni

Well the chemicals produced by a living agent would be covered under the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention and the Chemical Weapons Convention. To say there's no similarity is pretty ridiculous, but whatever it's not an important area of discussion as far as I can tell.

17th April 2010, 08:46 AM

So you only believe evidence if it was established in court? Or am I misunderstanding something here?

You're basically saying that Colombians lied and the information contained within the said unaltered files don't show Venezuela gave $300 million to FARC, then? That no such information is present in the data?

Except, of course, that there are legitimate reasons for Colombia to withhold the said information from the general public - not telling FARC (and Venezuela) exactly what they know is a significant advantage to them in any further attempts to seize their funding.

Moreover, a $300 million transfer of funds or resources in that value from a would-be socialist tin pot dictator in an oil rich country to a neighboring socialist guerrillas fighting the government of his neighboring enemy state is a tad more likely than a nonsensical, impossible, overly complex plot to demolish the WTC.

Well, either Colombia seized some computers from FARC, demonstrated it didn't alter any files, and then lied about the information contained in the files; or Chavez supports his ideological allies in a neighboring, hostile state.
You're saying the second option is the CT?

McHrozni

you belive blindly that it is evidence, i dont.
i dont know what the alleged evidence says, nor do you.
you just trust the Columbian claims, i want evidence for the claims, and nothing has been presented sofar.

and witholding it for good reasons? sorry, aint buying that one.

and who knows, maybe if the FARC indeed recieved 300m it was for freeing Hostages, maybe this is connected to the former Hostages thanking CHavez for his help. i dont make any claims, i dont say Columbia lies or Venezuela lies. i dont know becuase i have not seen any evidence.

you seem to belive claims without having any evidence.

this is a sceptic forum. this is all about evidence-

WildCat

17th April 2010, 09:44 AM

and who knows, maybe if the FARC indeed recieved 300m it was for freeing Hostages, maybe this is connected to the former Hostages thanking CHavez for his help.
:dl:

McHrozni

17th April 2010, 09:57 AM

Well the chemicals produced by a living agent would be covered under the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention and the Chemical Weapons Convention.

A vast majority of chemical weapons are abiotic in origin. I don't know of any chemical weapon of a biotic origin, there are about three candidates, one of which - Botulinum toxin - could actually become a potent weapon, but no evidence either has ever been made into a weapon. It's possible a prototype exists somewhere, but I doubt it.

To say there's no similarity is pretty ridiculous, but whatever it's not an important area of discussion as far as I can tell.

Like everywhere else, there are some minor similarities. It's a bit like mistaking a tank for a missile boat.

McHrozni

McHrozni

17th April 2010, 10:13 AM

you belive blindly that it is evidence, i dont.
i dont know what the alleged evidence says, nor do you.
you just trust the Columbian claims, i want evidence for the claims, and nothing has been presented sofar.

and witholding it for good reasons? sorry, aint buying that one.

When the evidence goes against your hypothesis, you ignore the evidence, stick to your hypothesis AND call people who disagree with you conspiracy theorists.

Oh my :)

and who knows, maybe if the FARC indeed recieved 300m it was for freeing Hostages, maybe this is connected to the former Hostages thanking CHavez for his help.

Aha, sure, and Venezuela just gave away $300 million for foreign hostages without telling anyone. Go on, please expand this theory for a bit. Which hostages were paid for, how much were they paid, why didn't Venezuela tell anybody they were paying ransoms, why the ransoms are so large and, most of all, why doesn't paying ransoms for foreign hostages amount to giving support to the terrorists (which FARC are) :)

I guess I'll have to wait long, won't I?

i dont make any claims, i dont say Columbia lies or Venezuela lies. i dont know becuase i have not seen any evidence.

you seem to belive claims without having any evidence.

this is a sceptic forum. this is all about evidence-

You have an awfully high standard of what constitutes evidence when your hero is the one attacked.

Let's take this claim of yours, from this thread:

well false information led to a coup in 2002.
people thought the Chavistas are shooting the non Chavistas, while they didnt, they shot at snipers. this false Information led alot of people in the military to turn against the government.

Prove to me, to the standard of evidence you're using for claims against Chavez, that the coup in 2002 was indeed a result of false information, because people thought the Chavistas were shooting the non-Chavistas, while they weren't, etc.

Remember not to use any Venezuelan government sources, since those are clearly biased, and no claims, from anywhere, without solid evidence presented alongside.

McHrozni

17th April 2010, 10:25 AM

When the evidence goes against your hypothesis, you ignore the evidence, stick to your hypothesis AND call people who disagree with you conspiracy theorists.

Oh my :)

Aha, sure, and Venezuela just gave away $300 million for foreign hostages without telling anyone. Go on, please expand this theory for a bit. Which hostages were paid for, how much were they paid, why didn't Venezuela tell anybody they were paying ransoms, why the ransoms are so large and, most of all, why doesn't paying ransoms for foreign hostages amount to giving support to the terrorists (which FARC are) :)

I guess I'll have to wait long, won't I?

You have an awfully high standard of what constitutes evidence when your hero is the one attacked.

Let's take this claim of yours, from this thread:

Prove to me, to the standard of evidence you're using for claims against Chavez, that the coup in 2002 was indeed a result of false information, because people thought the Chavistas were shooting the non-Chavistas, while they weren't, etc.

Remember not to use any Venezuelan government sources, since those are clearly biased, and no claims, from anywhere, without solid evidence presented alongside.

McHrozni

you make claims of the Venezuelan Government beeing biased.
i didnt make claims in this case.

and about the coup. there atleast i have seen the video from the bridge.
from Colombia i have seen nothing. only a report that says they found no manipulated data.

you guys are making claims without having seen the evidence.

i have made no claim, not against Colombia nor against Venezuela.
i dont know and i cannot know.

you seem to belive something you have no evidence for.

just be patient, when a court finds this evidence is indeed evidence, i will most propebly accept it.

in this case i am not the one making claims, you are, and as the evidence is not avaible to you, your claims are soley based on trust in the Columbian government.

when you have real evidence that we can look at, come back and we can continue this debate.

untill then you better post it in the CT section.

17th April 2010, 10:29 AM

and not talking about if and how much has been payed is normal behavior in case of hostages.

McHrozni

17th April 2010, 10:33 AM

you make claims of the Venezuelan Government beeing biased.

They certainly have motive and means to be biased. No, use an independent source.

and about the coup. there atleast i have seen the video from the bridge.
from Colombia i have seen nothing. only a report that says they found no manipulated data.

So according to you, one video from a bridge adequately proves the coup in 2002 was indeed a result of false information, because people thought the Chavistas were shooting the non-Chavistas, while they weren't?

Yes or no, please.

i have made no claim, not against Colombia nor against Venezuela.

Nope, but you made at least one for Venezuela. Prove it to the extent you're requiring all evidence against Venezuela to be proven, or admit you're a hypocrite.

McHrozni

McHrozni

17th April 2010, 10:35 AM

and not talking about if and how much has been payed is normal behavior in case of hostages.

So is not showing sensitive intelligence data, but you weren't buying that earlier on. Would you care to explain why you accept this fact, but not that one?

McHrozni

cornsail

17th April 2010, 11:12 AM

A vast majority of chemical weapons are abiotic in origin. I don't know of any chemical weapon of a biotic origin, there are about three candidates, one of which - Botulinum toxin - could actually become a potent weapon, but no evidence either has ever been made into a weapon. It's possible a prototype exists somewhere, but I doubt it.

Okay, fair enough.

The US (and other countries) authorized the sale of pathogenic and toxic agents with high applicability to chemical and biological weapon development to Sadam Hussein, while also providing him with significant financial credits. Hussein used chemical weapons against the Iranians and the Kurds. He also developed biological weapons using anthrax, aflatoxin, and botulinum toxin. Biological weapons were deployed in the Gulf War, but (to my knowledge) never actually used.

I hope that's more accurate.

McHrozni

17th April 2010, 11:37 AM

Okay, fair enough.

The US (and other countries) authorized the sale of pathogenic and toxic agents with high applicability to chemical and biological weapon development to Sadam Hussein, while also providing him with significant financial credits. Hussein used chemical weapons against the Iranians and the Kurds. He also developed biological weapons using anthrax, aflatoxin, and botulinum toxin. Biological weapons were deployed in the Gulf War, but (to my knowledge) never actually used.

I hope that's more accurate.

Sure, just remember that whenever someone asks if Saddam was a potential threat or not ;)

McHrozni

cornsail

17th April 2010, 12:27 PM

Sure, just remember that whenever someone asks if Saddam was a potential threat or not ;)

McHrozni

That depends.. threat to whom and at what time? After his failure in war with Iran, his failure in invading Kuwait and the no-fly zones and sanctions imposed on him I don't believe he was a threat to the United States or even a large threat to neighboring countries. Especially after inspection efforts were upped by the UN. Before all that he was obviously a threat to his neighbors, but not much of a threat to Western powers, in my opinion. He was always more than a "threat" to his own people. For humanitarian reasons, I'm glad he was finally taken out.

funk de fino

17th April 2010, 12:35 PM

Gents

The FARC stuff is a derail and has been reported. There is another thread that discusses this. It only allows the Chavistas to ignore the IAHR report that damns their hero.

funk de fino

17th April 2010, 12:36 PM

Okay, fair enough.

The US (and other countries) authorized the sale of pathogenic and toxic agents with high applicability to chemical and biological weapon development to Sadam Hussein, while also providing him with significant financial credits. Hussein used chemical weapons against the Iranians and the Kurds. He also developed biological weapons using anthrax, aflatoxin, and botulinum toxin. Biological weapons were deployed in the Gulf War, but (to my knowledge) never actually used.

I hope that's more accurate.

Yes, hindsight is a wonderful thing though eh? Read the report yet?

cornsail

17th April 2010, 01:23 PM

If you think we sold Sadam Hussein anthrax, nerve agents and other such materials with the assumption that they would be used strictly for innocent purposes, I think you're being naive. But you're free to your own interpretation.

I haven't read the report yet. As I said I looked at it and it did seem indicate legitimate problems.

McHrozni

17th April 2010, 02:25 PM

The FARC stuff is a derail and has been reported. There is another thread that discusses this.

Hmm, where is it? :)

McHrozni

funk de fino

17th April 2010, 02:26 PM

If you think we sold Sadam Hussein anthrax, nerve agents and other such materials with the assumption that they would be used strictly for innocent purposes, I think you're being naive. But you're free to your own interpretation.

I am assuming you have read little on the actual sales of these ingredients and the terms they were sold under. One company sold the spores legitimitly to Saddam. At what point does mind reading come into play with business decisions in your world? It was not one big organisation that sold him everything in one go. You have to connect a lot of dots to get where you are.

BTW - Its also a derail.

cornsail

17th April 2010, 07:49 PM

Yeah, it's a derail so I'll leave it alone even though we disagree.

18th April 2010, 03:16 AM

They certainly have motive and means to be biased. No, use an independent source.
and Columbia has no motive to be biased?

So according to you, one video from a bridge adequately proves the coup in 2002 was indeed a result of false information, because people thought the Chavistas were shooting the non-Chavistas, while they weren't?

Yes or no, please.
no, you also need to know what the soldiers said they thought and what led them to act against the elected government. you also need to know about snipers on roofs and all that. but there testemonies video fotos and all kind of information is avaible.

Nope, but you made at least one for Venezuela. Prove it to the extent you're requiring all evidence against Venezuela to be proven, or admit you're a hypocrite.

McHrozni

if the Columbian government would present the evidence we could take a look at it and see what it says, if it is indeed evidence. but sofar we dont know it.

they would not be the first government that belives or claims to have evidence that later turns out to be not evidence at all. we should have learned that lesson.

18th April 2010, 04:32 AM

another case where a Government had evidence, facts based on solid intel.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYI7JXGqd0o

McHrozni

18th April 2010, 06:25 AM

and Columbia has no motive to be biased?

It sure has, but they're the ones claiming to have the evidence. Sooner or later this evidence will have to be shared - and indeed it already was with some countries, in private. None raised objections over what the said evidence said.

The only thing we have from Venezuela, however, is their word.

no, you also need to know what the soldiers said they thought and what led them to act against the elected government. you also need to know about snipers on roofs and all that. but there testemonies video fotos and all kind of information is avaible.

Where is it available? Evidence, not claims, remember?

if the Columbian government would present the evidence we could take a look at it and see what it says, if it is indeed evidence. but sofar we dont know it.

And, as I have said earlier, there are legitimate reasons for that.

they would not be the first government that belives or claims to have evidence that later turns out to be not evidence at all. we should have learned that lesson.

True. However you seem to believe Venezuelan word rather readily, but are extremely reluctant to believe anything coming from Colombia.

McHrozni

18th April 2010, 06:43 AM

It sure has, but they're the ones claiming to have the evidence. Sooner or later this evidence will have to be shared - and indeed it already was with some countries, in private. None raised objections over what the said evidence said.

The only thing we have from Venezuela, however, is their word.

what do you expect from Venezuela?

Where is it available? Evidence, not claims, remember?

as it was used in a Venezuelan court im sure you will not accept it as evidence.

And, as I have said earlier, there are legitimate reasons for that.

and as i have said earlier, im not buying that excuse.

FARC knows what is on thsoe electronic devices, so they know what is evidence and what not. no reasson to withhold the evidence. because to FARC it is already known.

True. However you seem to believe Venezuelan word rather readily, but are extremely reluctant to believe anything coming from Colombia.

McHrozni

no there are alot Venezuelans i distrust. especially politicans.
but how trustworthy is columbia? i had the impression you also think freedom of the press is important, and columbia is doing even worse than Venezuela in this.

McHrozni

18th April 2010, 07:32 AM

what do you expect from Venezuela?

If the money sent was for remotely legitimate reasons - like paying for hostages or something like that, they should come forward, admit they sent them money and explain why did they do it.
If the money didn't come from Venezuela, they should call Colombia out for distributing lies.

They have done neither, which leads me to suspect the third option - they were indeed financing FARC - plausible.

It is true that Venezuelans officials may disagree with me, so this is not evidence of any kind, but it is a reasonable conclusion.

as it was used in a Venezuelan court im sure you will not accept it as evidence.

Of course I don't trust any Venezuelan court. That said, I'm willing to look at your evidence, if you have any at all. It is possible the evidence they had was legit and their decision was correct. However the fact a Venezuelan court accepted the argument doesn't say anything about it's validity.

So where is it?

and as i have said earlier, im not buying that excuse.

Double standards, got it :)

FARC knows what is on thsoe electronic devices, so they know what is evidence and what not. no reasson to withhold the evidence. because to FARC it is already known.

Do they? Please submit evidence that demonstrates in no uncertain terms the FARC high command knows exactly which computers, external hard drives and USB flash drives were seized and exactly the information that was on them, including the information that was supposed to be destroyed in an event such as this. I should stress I need evidence and not claims.

I guess I'll wait for a long, long while, eh?

no there are alot Venezuelans i distrust. especially politicans.
but how trustworthy is columbia? i had the impression you also think freedom of the press is important, and columbia is doing even worse than Venezuela in this.

So? I never said Colombia is without their own problems. I really see no need for them to be perfect in order for Chavez to be scum. Colombia demonstrated they indeed got information of FARC-Venezuela relationship to my satisfaction. For a courtroom decision I would require more of course, including what they have and how does it lead to Venezuela, but I trust their analysis outside of court, not in the least because they have very little (read: absolutely no) reason to finger Venezuela for something they haven't actually done.

McHrozni

18th April 2010, 08:07 AM

If the money sent was for remotely legitimate reasons - like paying for hostages or something like that, they should come forward, admit they sent them money and explain why did they do it.
If the money didn't come from Venezuela, they should call Colombia out for distributing lies.

They have done neither, which leads me to suspect the third option - they were indeed financing FARC - plausible.

It is true that Venezuelans officials may disagree with me, so this is not evidence of any kind, but it is a reasonable conclusion.

claims from Chavez agsint claims from Columbia are not helpfull at all.

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/americas/05/15/colombia.computers/index.html

Of course I don't trust any Venezuelan court. That said, I'm willing to look at your evidence, if you have any at all. It is possible the evidence they had was legit and their decision was correct. However the fact a Venezuelan court accepted the argument doesn't say anything about it's validity.

So where is it?

would you accpet evidence from a Columbian court?

Double standards, got it :)

you gat a mirror at hand?

Do they? Please submit evidence that demonstrates in no uncertain terms the FARC high command knows exactly which computers, external hard drives and USB flash drives were seized and exactly the information that was on them, including the information that was supposed to be destroyed in an event such as this. I should stress I need evidence and not claims.

I guess I'll wait for a long, long while, eh?

LOL they only need to read the Interpol report. they would even see pictures of their laptops.

be honest, you didnt even read the Interpol report.

So? I never said Colombia is without their own problems. I really see no need for them to be perfect in order for Chavez to be scum. Colombia demonstrated they indeed got information of FARC-Venezuela relationship to my satisfaction. For a courtroom decision I would require more of course, including what they have and how does it lead to Venezuela, but I trust their analysis outside of court, not in the least because they have very little (read: absolutely no) reason to finger Venezuela for something they haven't actually done.

McHrozni

and you accuse me of double standard :)
funny

McHrozni

18th April 2010, 10:44 AM

claims from Chavez agsint claims from Columbia are not helpfull at all.

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/americas/05/15/colombia.computers/index.html

Ah, I see. It's a lot worse than I imagined - unless Interpol is lying in our faces, Chavez did indeed fund terrorists. Why else would he issue such a knee-jerk reaction to the report?

would you accpet evidence from a Columbian court?

It would depend on what would the evidence say, I wouldn't accept it out of hand, same as with Venezuela.

LOL they only need to read the Interpol report. they would even see pictures of their laptops.

You really should know that doesn't prove anything. Prove FARC knew which computers and other pieces of equipment were there, for example the serial numbers of all compromised equipment (including any pieces that were destroyed or lost during the raid, in case any were - not an unlikely event in the slightest). Prove they knew exactly what devices contained, what they didn't contain and which information might have been destroyed in time and which information was there but didn't fall into Colombian hands. Prove they know exactly what Colombia may connect this with to find out about other money trails FARC uses to finance itself.
In short, you need to demonstrate to the point of certainty, insofar as this is possible, that FARC already knows all the relevant information. Right now all you have is that it is not impossible for them to know it, but it is extremely implausible that they do.

You require evidence, not claims or speculation remember?

I'm in for a very long wait, aren't I? :)

be honest, you didnt even read the Interpol report.

Not the whole thing, no. Should I have?

and you accuse me of double standard :)
funny

Would you care to elaborate where I'm using double standards?

McHrozni

18th April 2010, 10:58 AM

Ah, I see. It's a lot worse than I imagined - unless Interpol is lying in our faces, Chavez did indeed fund terrorists. Why else would he issue such a knee-jerk reaction to the report?

lol thats comedy pure.

It would depend on what would the evidence say, I wouldn't accept it out of hand, same as with Venezuela.

huh? so when the government of Columbia claims to have evidence you belive it.

but when the evidence gomes from a Columbian court, you first want to know what the evidence actually says.

that is very interesting.

You really should know that doesn't prove anything. Prove FARC knew which computers and other pieces of equipment were there, for example the serial numbers of all compromised equipment (including any laptops that were destroyed or lost during the raid, in case any were - not an unlikely event in the slightest). Prove they knew exactly what devices contained, what they didn't contain and which information might have been destroyed in time and which information was there but didn't fall into Colombian hands. Prove they know exactly what Colombia may connect this with to find out about other money trails FARC uses to finance itself.
In short, you need to demonstrate to the point of certainty, insofar as this is possible, that FARC already knows all the relevant information. Right now all you have is that it is not impossible for them to know it, but it is extremely implausible that they do.

You require evidence, not claims or speculation remember?

I'm in for a very long wait, aren't I? :)

again, FARC only need to read the Interpol report.

Item 26:
Toshiba Satellite M55-5331
bearing serial number
16239763K

Item 27:
One Laptop Toshiba Satellite
M55-5331 bearing serial number
16238282K

Item 28:
One Laptop Toshiba Satellite
U205-S5057 bearing serial
number 17040828H

Item 30:
One external hard drive LACIE
bearing serial number
JJ86708J60054QR

Item 31:
One external hard disk LACIE
bearing serial number
SJHHRDMH

Item 32:
One USB thumb drive
SANDISK SDCZ6-2048RB
bearing serial number
BE0707AAFB

Item 33:
One USB thumb drive Cruzer
Micro 2 GB bearing serial
number 33

Item 34:
One USB thumb drive
KINSTONCN J02907 04223-
3171002F

Not the whole thing, no. Should I have?

yes. also interesting are the parts about dates in the future, or Columbian authorities not following international standards in handlin electronic evidence etc.

Would you care to elaborate where I'm using double standards?

McHrozni

just reread your posts :)

funk de fino

18th April 2010, 11:00 AM

Hmm, where is it? :)

McHrozni

It's one of the DC and FdF bickering threads from moons ago.

ETA - Continuing derail reported.

18th April 2010, 11:01 AM

It's one of the DC and FdF bickering threads from moons ago.

i googled it but didnt find it anymore. and as you reported OT a few days ago, i asume the admins decide it to be not OT.

funk de fino

18th April 2010, 11:21 AM

i googled it but didnt find it anymore. and as you reported OT a few days ago, i asume the admins decide it to be not OT.

This thread is about freedom of speech, not FARC compouters. I can see why you want to avoid the report I linked to.

18th April 2010, 11:25 AM

This thread is about freedom of speech, not FARC compouters. I can see why you want to avoid the report I linked to.

why should i debate you ?
when im wrong i admit it, when you are wrong, like FARC - Chavez evidence, you just runned away after beeing schooled, like you like to say it.

funk de fino

18th April 2010, 11:31 AM

why should i debate you ?
when im wrong i admit it, when you are wrong, like FARC - Chavez evidence, you just runned away after beeing schooled, like you like to say it.

This thread is not about FARC. I am not debating it here as I have already debated you on it in another thread.

You have gone quiet on the OP. I gave evidence for you and you have run away and continued to participate in a derail.

18th April 2010, 11:34 AM

This thread is not about FARC. I am not debating it here as I have already debated you on it in another thread.

You have gone quiet on the OP. I gave evidence for you and you have run away and continued to participate in a derail.

there is simply not enough data avaible .

and i long ago stated already what i think about it, if it is 60 minutes max and also if it is more like you claimed.

and oh wonder oh wonder, and once more i disagreed with my alleged hero Chavez.

so i must go for another few days.

60 minutes per week max. not very good, but i think acceptable, should be only for emergencys in my oppinion.

a 7 hour alo presidente on all channels? no way acceptable, but just not following the law is also not smart. but for this i first have to see evidence.

but at the end, its up to the venezuelan voters.

funk de fino

18th April 2010, 12:30 PM

there is simply not enough data avaible .

and i long ago stated already what i think about it, if it is 60 minutes max and also if it is more like you claimed.

There is lots of data, you just refused to read it and made a fool of yourself and only looked at one page of something I gave you.

Do you think this is fair for democracy in Venezeula for when the time comes for elections to have so much one sided propoganda on the TV??

and oh wonder oh wonder, and once more i disagreed with my alleged hero Chavez.

Read the whole report. The presidential broadcasts are not the only issues they report on.

18th April 2010, 12:37 PM

There is lots of data, you just refused to read it and made a fool of yourself and only looked at one page of something I gave you.

Do you think this is fair for democracy in Venezeula for when the time comes for elections to have so much one sided propoganda on the TV??

Read the whole report. The presidential broadcasts are not the only issues they report on.

no its not fair, like already said, how many time do you want to hear it?

but when you read the EU commission reports you will note that while the comercials before the elections were polarizing, they managed to keep it pretty fair and balanced, i hope the Venezuelans will be able to manage that again.

and i hope they dont decide based on comercials who to vote for, but by their experiance of the changes they already have.

and for the people that dont want Chavez i hope they find a good alternative to him.
i also hope the situation will be less polarized in future.

i hope you are happy now. good night

McHrozni

18th April 2010, 12:47 PM

huh? so when the government of Columbia claims to have evidence you belive it.

but when the evidence gomes from a Columbian court, you first want to know what the evidence actually says.

that is very interesting.

You must've missed the part where Interpol claimed the evidence was not tampered with and Columbia shared it with other countries in private.

again, FARC only need to read the Interpol report.

Would you please re-read the stuff you quoted?

yes. also interesting are the parts about dates in the future, or Columbian authorities not following international standards in handlin electronic evidence etc.

Incidentally, I red that part. I find it rather important that the Interpol states this did not affect the integrity of the information. Any idea why that is?

I'll have to agree with funk de fino, though. The mere fact we're still talking about FARC is a derail. Could you please comment on this report:
http://cidh.org/countryrep/Venezuela2009eng/VE09.TOC.eng.htm

McHrozni

18th April 2010, 12:54 PM

You must've missed the part where Interpol claimed the evidence was not tampered with and Columbia shared it with other countries in private.

Would you please re-read the stuff you quoted?

Incidentally, I red that part. I find it rather important that the Interpol states this did not affect the integrity of the information. Any idea why that is?

I'll have to agree with funk de fino, though. The mere fact we're still talking about FARC is a derail. Could you please comment on this report:
http://cidh.org/countryrep/Venezuela2009eng/VE09.TOC.eng.htm

McHrozni

lol, yeah its better you change topic away from the alleged evidence :)
i guess you want me only to comment on the parts of the report that are about freedom of press, or it would be just another derail, aint it?

McHrozni

18th April 2010, 12:54 PM

no its not fair, like already said, how many time do you want to hear it?

but when you read the EU commission reports you will note that while the comercials before the elections were polarizing, they managed to keep it pretty fair and balanced, i hope the Venezuelans will be able to manage that again.

and i hope they dont decide based on comercials who to vote for, but by their experiance of the changes they already have.

and for the people that dont want Chavez i hope they find a good alternative to him.
i also hope the situation will be less polarized in future.

i hope you are happy now. good night

Let's get this straight, are you denouncing the following posts in this thread:
#324, #330, #343, #349, #353, #359, #375, #377, #383 and #390?

McHrozni

18th April 2010, 12:55 PM

Let's get this straight, are you denouncing the following posts in this thread:
#324, #330, #343, #349, #353, #359, #375, #377, #383 and #390?

McHrozni

quote them, i aint going to look em up :) thanks.

McHrozni

18th April 2010, 12:56 PM

lol, yeah its better you change topic away from the alleged evidence :)

For you maybe, since you had absolutely nothing at all.

Unless, of course, you can prove the stuff you quoted, and allegedly red. That, however, requires literacy, and I doubt many Chavez supporters outside of Venezuela are capable of that.

i guess you want me only to comment on the parts of the report that are about freedom of press, or it would be just another derail, aint it?

It would be a very good start.

McHrozni

funk de fino

18th April 2010, 12:57 PM

no its not fair, like already said, how many time do you want to hear it?

but when you read the EU commission reports you will note that while the comercials before the elections were polarizing, they managed to keep it pretty fair and balanced, i hope the Venezuelans will be able to manage that again.

This is not about commercials. Its about hours of state propoganda not only on one station but all stations. Remember globo doesnt reach many homes.

Its too one sided.

and i hope they dont decide based on comercials who to vote for, but by their experiance of the changes they already have.

Presidential broadcasts forced on all stations are not adverts.

and for the people that dont want Chavez i hope they find a good alternative to him.
i also hope the situation will be less polarized in future.

i hope you are happy now. good night

So do I.

McHrozni

18th April 2010, 12:57 PM

quote them, i aint going to look em up :) thanks.

It's about every post of yours from page 8 onwards in this thread that was longer than half a line. Do you now denounce your previous stance about Chavez entirely?

McHrozni

18th April 2010, 12:58 PM

For you maybe, since you had absolutely nothing at all.

Unless, of course, you can prove the stuff you quoted, and allegedly red. That, however, requires literacy, and I doubt many Chavez supporters outside of Venezuela are capable of that.

It would be a very good start.

McHrozni

and what parts are those?

18th April 2010, 01:00 PM

It's about every post of yours from page 8 onwards in this thread that was longer than half a line. Do you now denounce your previous stance about Chavez entirely?

McHrozni

no why?

there are many things i dislike about Chavez, but also alot things i like.

McHrozni

18th April 2010, 01:01 PM

and what parts are those?

Case in point regarding lack of literacy.

Hint:
IV. FREEDOM OF THOUGHT AND EXPRESSION

McHrozni

McHrozni

18th April 2010, 01:02 PM

no why?

Because you consistently sought to derail the thread about the lack of free speech under Chavez in Venezuela. Obviously you like this part about him, eh?

McHrozni

WildCat

18th April 2010, 01:53 PM

no why?

there are many things i dislike about Chavez, but also alot things i like.
Is completely destroying the Venezuelan economy one of the things you like about him?

Skeptic

18th April 2010, 03:14 PM

there are many things i dislike about Chavez, but also alot things i like....like making the trains run on time?

Ooops, sorry, different "good" dictator.

Except that Chavez, utterly destroying the economy, cannot even do that.

(Then again, I doubt Mussolini really could, either.)

funk de fino

18th April 2010, 05:28 PM

Boxing hero Edwin Valero (complete with Chavez tattoo) has been arrested for murder of his wife. This guy is a big hero over there, be interesting to see how this plays out in the press.

18th April 2010, 10:37 PM

Is completely destroying the Venezuelan economy one of the things you like about him?

:rolleyes:

18th April 2010, 10:39 PM

Boxing hero Edwin Valero (complete with Chavez tattoo) has been arrested for murder of his wife. This guy is a big hero over there, be interesting to see how this plays out in the press.

yeah something that would never happen in a Capitalist country !
you also reported your own post as OT?

18th April 2010, 10:41 PM

Because you consistently sought to derail the thread about the lack of free speech under Chavez in Venezuela. Obviously you like this part about him, eh?

McHrozni

when the claims have been trown into this topc from Wildcat, nobody cried OT.
after i showed that this is not evidence at all. then you guys start report OT.

very telling.

Skeptic

18th April 2010, 11:06 PM

when the claims have been trown into this topc from Wildcat, nobody cried OT.

Least of all yourself.

That's because it's so much more convenient for you to discuss something -- anything -- else about Chavez, except for the fact that he's a thuggish dictator who closes down opposition TV channels and arrests his critics.

Threads topics tend to drift in this forum. But no fair being "saved by topic drift" and then complaining about it when somebody reminds you what the original topic is, and how you turned out to be defending yet another Latin American El Presidente type simply because he spews "socialist" gibberish to fool the useful idiots.

18th April 2010, 11:09 PM

Least of all yourself.

That's because it's so much more convenient for you to discuss something -- anything -- else about Chavez, except for the fact that he's a thuggish dictator who closes down opposition TV channels and arrests his critics.

Threads topics tend to drift in this forum. But no fair being "saved by topic drift" and then complaining about it when somebody reminds you what the original topic is, and how you turned out to be defending yet another Latin American El Presidente type simply because he spews "socialist" gibberish to fool the useful idiots.

i have discused alot of thing where i even say i disagree with Chavez, so?

you are just pissed there is noone that finds an idiot like you usefull.

Skeptic

18th April 2010, 11:15 PM

yeah something that would never happen in a Capitalist country!Whenever the horrors and misery of, say, North Vietnam, Maoist China, or cold-war-era Poland were noted, the usual anti-anti-communist cry was, "But there's also injustice in the USA!".

Well, true, there is, but in the USA, there hasn't been tens of millions of dead from starvation, one-party rule where saying the wrong thing can cost you your head, or a gulag empire for reeducating anybody the dictator du jour doesn't like.

Still, once more, the biggest, and most obvious, problem in all of the "socialist" arguments made here in favor of Chavez is that none of his defenders would, in a million years, think for a minute of leaving their own evil, unjust, capitalistic country and moving to any good, just, socialist country -- not even to a relatively benign one like, say, 1960s pre-Soviet-invasion Czechoslovakia, let alone to Chavez's tin-pot dictatorship.

The emigration balance in the communist - vs. - capitalist world has been a few hundreds of millions moving, or trying to move, to the capitalist west from the socialist east, and a few hundreds (if that) going the other way.

Pick an immigrant at random, and the chances of him moving from a capitalist country to a socialist one are comparable to the chances of winning the lottery. The chances are even lower -- that is, zero -- that one of the brave defenders of the great and just socialist system will move to such a country.

So much for socialism being comparable, let alone superior, to capitalism in the real world. As (I think) Emerson said in a different context but is perfectly applicable to our brave defenders of the socialist system, "your actions speak so loudly, I can't hear what you're saying".

McHrozni

18th April 2010, 11:29 PM

when the claims have been trown into this topc from Wildcat, nobody cried OT.
after i showed that this is not evidence at all. then you guys start report OT.

very telling.

You're delusional. The only reason you're being told you've drifted OT is because the debate there became irrelevant, primarily because of the lack of literacy on your part.

I guess the ability to read and supporting Chavez are mutually exclusive. It wouldn't be the first such example at all.

McHrozni

18th April 2010, 11:41 PM

You must've missed the part where Interpol claimed the evidence was not tampered with and Columbia shared it with other countries in private.

Would you please re-read the stuff you quoted?

Incidentally, I red that part. I find it rather important that the Interpol states this did not affect the integrity of the information. Any idea why that is?

I'll have to agree with funk de fino, though. The mere fact we're still talking about FARC is a derail. Could you please comment on this report:
http://cidh.org/countryrep/Venezuela2009eng/VE09.TOC.eng.htm

McHrozni

sofar i have read Chapter IV part A. and i agree with everything they say in that part.
indeed the law must be more detailed.
and i also agree that the current wording does hinder free expression.
the law must be rewritten with precise wording. we know that problem here in Switzerland.

18th April 2010, 11:42 PM

You're delusional. The only reason you're being told you've drifted OT is because the debate there became irrelevant, primarily because of the lack of literacy on your part.

I guess the ability to read and supporting Chavez are mutually exclusive. It wouldn't be the first such example at all.

McHrozni

yeah ad homs will help you alot :)

McHrozni

18th April 2010, 11:45 PM

sofar i have read Chapter IV part A. and i agree with everything they say in that part.
indeed the law must be more detailed.
and i also agree that the current wording does hinder free expression.
the law must be rewritten with precise wording. we know that problem here in Switzerland.

The easiest way to abuse laws is to write them in a way that allows for multiple interpretations. If you also control the courts, like Chavez does, all you have to do then is tell them which explanation you want in a particular case.

I hope you didn't think the law is unclear by accident.

McHrozni

18th April 2010, 11:49 PM

The easiest way to abuse laws is to write them in a way that allows for multiple interpretations. If you also control the courts, like Chavez does, all you have to do then is tell them which explanation you want in a particular case.

I hope you didn't think the law is unclear by accident.

McHrozni

you got evidence that it is not by accident?
i dont know if accident or not. and it doesnt matter, they must be clear.

also i would like to know how exactly he is controling the courts.

McHrozni

18th April 2010, 11:51 PM

yeah ad homs will help you alot :)

It's not an ad hominem, it's a statement of fact*. Since you made no argument I also wasn't refuting anything by that post, which also eliminates a possibility it was ad hominem at all :)

* proof:
Question or challenge:
Prove FARC knew which computers and other pieces of equipment were there, for example the serial numbers of all compromised equipment (including any laptops that were destroyed or lost during the raid, in case any were - not an unlikely event in the slightest). Prove they knew exactly what devices contained, what they didn't contain and which information might have been destroyed in time and which information was there but didn't fall into Colombian hands. Prove they know exactly what Colombia may connect this with to find out about other money trails FARC uses to finance itself.
In short, you need to demonstrate to the point of certainty, insofar as this is possible, that FARC already knows all the relevant information. Right now all you have is that it is not impossible for them to know it, but it is extremely implausible that they do.

Your answer:
again, FARC only need to read the Interpol report.

Item 26:
Toshiba Satellite M55-5331
bearing serial number
16239763K

Item 27:
One Laptop Toshiba Satellite
M55-5331 bearing serial number
16238282K

Item 28:
One Laptop Toshiba Satellite
U205-S5057 bearing serial
number 17040828H

Item 30:
One external hard drive LACIE
bearing serial number
JJ86708J60054QR

Item 31:
One external hard disk LACIE
bearing serial number
SJHHRDMH

Item 32:
One USB thumb drive
SANDISK SDCZ6-2048RB
bearing serial number
BE0707AAFB

Item 33:
One USB thumb drive Cruzer
Micro 2 GB bearing serial
number 33

Item 34:
One USB thumb drive
KINSTONCN J02907 04223-
3171002F

A literate person would know that you can't prove FARC knew before the raid all serial numbers of all equipment they had there and exactly what was on each of them simply by posting the serial numbers of the said equipment. Sure, they might know the serial numbers now, but unless they knew them in advance it's rather unlikely this did any good to them.

Literacy and supporting Chavez are indeed mutually exclusive.

McHrozni

McHrozni

18th April 2010, 11:53 PM

you got evidence that it is not by accident?

Just circumstantial stuff, really. Plentiful enough for me, though.

i dont know if accident or not. and it doesnt matter, they must be clear.

Of course it matters. If it was by design, chances are it will not be made clear.

also i would like to know how exactly he is controling the courts.

Try reading chapter III of the report ...

McHrozni

19th April 2010, 01:20 AM

It's not an ad hominem, it's a statement of fact*. Since you made no argument I also wasn't refuting anything by that post, which also eliminates a possibility it was ad hominem at all :)

* proof:
Question or challenge:
Prove FARC knew which computers and other pieces of equipment were there, for example the serial numbers of all compromised equipment (including any laptops that were destroyed or lost during the raid, in case any were - not an unlikely event in the slightest). Prove they knew exactly what devices contained, what they didn't contain and which information might have been destroyed in time and which information was there but didn't fall into Colombian hands. Prove they know exactly what Colombia may connect this with to find out about other money trails FARC uses to finance itself.
In short, you need to demonstrate to the point of certainty, insofar as this is possible, that FARC already knows all the relevant information. Right now all you have is that it is not impossible for them to know it, but it is extremely implausible that they do.

Your answer:
again, FARC only need to read the Interpol report.

Item 26:
Toshiba Satellite M55-5331
bearing serial number
16239763K

Item 27:
One Laptop Toshiba Satellite
M55-5331 bearing serial number
16238282K

Item 28:
One Laptop Toshiba Satellite
U205-S5057 bearing serial
number 17040828H

Item 30:
One external hard drive LACIE
bearing serial number
JJ86708J60054QR

Item 31:
One external hard disk LACIE
bearing serial number
SJHHRDMH

Item 32:
One USB thumb drive
SANDISK SDCZ6-2048RB
bearing serial number
BE0707AAFB

Item 33:
One USB thumb drive Cruzer
Micro 2 GB bearing serial
number 33

Item 34:
One USB thumb drive
KINSTONCN J02907 04223-
3171002F

A literate person would know that you can't prove FARC knew before the raid all serial numbers of all equipment they had there and exactly what was on each of them simply by posting the serial numbers of the said equipment. Sure, they might know the serial numbers now, but unless they knew them in advance it's rather unlikely this did any good to them.

Literacy and supporting Chavez are indeed mutually exclusive.

McHrozni

lol they sure knew the serial numbers before, when you buy a computer, on your bill that is also needed for garanty, the serial number is printed on it.
same for hard drives and USB sticks.

another ad hom is noted.

19th April 2010, 01:35 AM

Just circumstantial stuff, really. Plentiful enough for me, though.

Of course it matters. If it was by design, chances are it will not be made clear.

Try reading chapter III of the report ...

McHrozni

they say Venezuela should stick to the Constitution, that Constitution you claimed was made by Chavez and his thugs.

so you also agree now that the 1999 Constitution of Venezuela is a good one, that would ensure the independence of the courts?

btw, how are supreme court justices apointed in your country?
by open public competitions ?

McHrozni

19th April 2010, 01:51 AM

they say Venezuela should stick to the Constitution

In one of the 14 proposals, yes. Did you read the other 13? Proposals 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 are very telling indeed.

that Constitution you claimed was made by Chavez and his thugs.

Learn to read, then read the report. It's very informative.

so you also agree now that the 1999 Constitution of Venezuela is a good one, that would ensure the independence of the courts?

A constitution by itself can't ensure anything. It's just some text, after all. Appropriately upholding the constitution, however, would.

btw, how are supreme court justices apointed in your country?

Why would that be relevant?

McHrozni

19th April 2010, 01:54 AM

In one of the 14 proposals, yes. Did you read the other 13? Proposals 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 are very telling indeed.

Learn to read, then read the report. It's very informative.

A constitution by itself can't ensure anything. It's just some text, after all. Appropriately upholding the constitution, however, would.

Why would that be relevant?

McHrozni

sure a constitution must be acted upon. they have to follow the Constitution in order to ensure the things in the Constitution, and this wasnt alawys the Case in Venezuelam thats what the report says.

it would be relevant in order to know how it also can be done, i dont know from what country you come from, maybe you got a good system that would be good for Venezuela.

McHrozni

19th April 2010, 01:58 AM

lol they sure knew the serial numbers before, when you buy a computer, on your bill that is also needed for garanty, the serial number is printed on it.
same for hard drives and USB sticks.

You seem to think that what one man in FARC knew, all FARC knew. Sure, the people who operated these computers, the ones who were present during the raid, possibly captured or killed, might have known the serial numbers and the content of the computers. The problem is not all are able to communicate with FARC right now. Prove the FARC high command knew all of this information.

Don't try it too hard, by the way. The task is indeed impossible.

Secondly, I didn't mention that before, but it's way more relevant: providing the evidence to the public outside of a trial would compromise all judges or juries in the world and make it impossible to use the evidence in a trial. Why would they show the evidence, if that would mean they couldn't use it in a trial?

McHrozni