Chavez defends "Carlos the Jackal," Idi Amin

[Puppycow]

Anyone still want to defend this guy (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8372250.stm)?

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has defended jailed killer "Carlos the Jackal" and several world leaders he says are wrongly considered "bad guys".

In a speech to international socialist politicians, Mr Chavez said "Carlos", a Venezuelan, was not a terrorist but a key "revolutionary fighter".

He is serving a life sentence in France for murders committed in 1975.

Mr Chavez also hailed Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe, Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and the late Ugandan dictator Idi Amin.

[Eddie Dane]

You blow up a few cafe's and throw a couple of hand grenades in to a metro or two and BOOM, everybody think you're a bad guy.

Thank god we have enlightened world leaders like Chavez to set the record straight.

[WildCat]

I'm sure Childlike Empress and DC will be here shortly to make excuses for Hugo.

[Thunder]

Um, Israelis honor their terrorists, so why can't Chavez honor his heros?

[Matthew Best]

Because it's bad whoever does it?

[XBoxWarrior]

In a speech to international socialist politicians, Mr Chavez said "Carlos", a Venezuelan, was not a terrorist but a key "revolutionary fighter".
Not unlike beauty, the definition of a terrorist is in the eye/politics of the beholder. I'm sure there are many in the world that might consider President Bush to be a terrorist, and that our actions in Iraq to be a mass example of genocidal terrorism.

After all, he named it, "Shock and Awe". ;) I'm sure that Bin Laden thought, but didn't get the meme out on national TV, the same about his feat on 911...

I do, however believe, that Carlos was a terrorist.

[corplinx]

Anyone still want to defend this guy (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8372250.stm)?


Why do you want to go to war with Venezuela Puppycow?

[Normal Dude]

Um, Israelis honor their terrorists, so why can't Chavez honor his heros?

WTF does this have to do with Israel? This obsession of yours is unhealthy.

[Pardalis]

I'm sure there are many in the world that might consider President Bush to be a terrorist, and that our actions in Iraq to be a mass example of genocidal terrorism.

We call them idiots.

[Sporanox]

Not unlike beauty, the definition of a terrorist is in the eye/politics of the beholder. I'm sure there are many in the world that might consider President Bush to be a terrorist, and that our actions in Iraq to be a mass example of genocidal terrorism.

After all, he named it, "Shock and Awe". ;) I'm sure that Bin Laden thought, but didn't get the meme out on national TV, the same about his feat on 911...

I do, however believe, that Carlos was a terrorist.

Do you get your talking points from Hollywood or something?

[Thunder]

WTF does this have to do with Israel? This obsession of yours is unhealthy.

but humorous.

[Darth Rotor]

but humorous.

Nope. Carlos is probably mad at you already, conflating him with them Zionists and such.

You don't want to see him when he's angry ...

[Skeptic]

I'm sure Childlike Empress and DC will be here shortly to make excuses for Hugo.

It's Bush's fault.

[Skeptic]

I like the "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter -- except for Bush and zionists, who really are terrorists" argument.

This really means "I support OBL and Hamas, the freedom fighters, in their war against the USA and Israel, the real terrorists", doesn't it?

Anyway, I wonder if this idiotic cliche -- accepted as gospel truth by the left, go figure -- applies to other fields.

Let's see:

1). One man's rapist is another man's enthusiastic lover.
2). One man's thief is another man's income redistributor.
3). One man's arsonist is another man's informal urban redesigner.

And, of course:

4). One man's terrorist murderer is another man's freedom fighter, as said above.

See? TOLD you that when I raped, robbed, and killed that woman and then burned the house down on her, I did nothing wrong. You're just looking at it the wrong way. You're not enlightened enough, that's your problem.

[Ziggurat]

I'm sure there are many in the world that might consider President Bush to be a terrorist, and that our actions in Iraq to be a mass example of genocidal terrorism.

Well, yes, and there are a lot of really stupid people in the world as well. And more than a bit of overlap between those two sets - in fact, I'd say your group is a subset of mine. Are you an element of either set?

After all, he named it, "Shock and Awe".

No he didn't. In fact, both the term and the doctrine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shock_and_Awe) it describes were formulated well before Bush even ran for President.

[ponderingturtle]

Nope. Carlos is probably mad at you already, conflating him with them Zionists and such.

You don't want to see him when he's angry ...

Why? He is a fat kid from an upper middle class background who lucked into some good press.

And there are plenty of terrorists who are not broadly condemed. The bombing of the King David hotel was one of the first modern acts of terror after all. And the french resistance fits well into definitions of terrorist as well.

[lionking]

I'm looking forward to posts from Idi Amin apologists.

[Darth Rotor]

Why? He is a fat kid from an upper middle class background who lucked into some good press.
You talking about Chavez, or Carlos? Him being fat kid from upper middle class does not disqualify him as a killer.
And the french resistance fits well into definitions of terrorist as well.
Yawohl, Gauleiter Ponderenschildkröte . :cool:

DR

[commandlinegamer]

After being hunted for years, Carlos turned out to be pretty mediocre, nothing like he was portrayed by Robert Ludlum; suave, debonair and incredibly violent by turns. The real Carlos is just an overweight thug.

[Darth Rotor]

After being hunted for years, Carlos turned out to be pretty mediocre, nothing like he was portrayed by Robert Ludlum; suave, debonair and incredibly violent by turns. The real Carlos is just an overweight thug.

Who killed people, right?

[hgc]

And there are plenty of terrorists who are not broadly condemed. The bombing of the King David hotel was one of the first modern acts of terror after all. And the french resistance fits well into definitions of terrorist as well.


Uh, that's a little far-fetched ("one of the first"). Politically motivated bombings have been happening pretty regularly since the invention of ... bombs. There is nothing original or special about the King David Hotel bombing along this continuum.

[Darth Rotor]

Uh, that's a little far-fetched ("one of the first"). Politically motivated bombings have been happening pretty regularly since the invention of ... bombs. There is nothing original or special about the King David Hotel bombing along this continuum.
If we are to believe his Wiki bio article, he was weaned on class struggle and Marxist/Leninist demagoguery. Obviously, his mother and father wanted to teach their children well. :rolleyes: His book (possible ghost written) is doubtless worth a read for the standard America bashers ...
In it Carlos praises Osama bin Laden and the September 11 attacks and advocates Revolutionary Islam as a "new, post-Communist answer to what he calls US `totalitarianism`", telling readers "from now on terrorism is going to be more or less a daily part of the landscape of your rotting democracies."
He's probably right about that last bit, but then, that's been true, as was previously pointed out, since people got on to the idea of using bombs.

Guy Fawkes ...

[ponderingturtle]

You talking about Chavez, or Carlos? Him being fat kid from upper middle class does not disqualify him as a killer.

Carlos. Sure he is a killer, but he is not the super terrorist he is portrayed to be in pop culture. He got lucky and got some good press.

Yawohl, Gauleiter Ponderenschildkröte . :cool:


Hey, they fit many modern definitions of terrorists. I have seen clear definitions from the DOD of terrorist that fit the french resistance. When you define terrorist as any non state power using unconventional means you get lots of people defined as terrorist who you agree with.

I am not convinced that there is a hard and fixed definition that you can use to differentiate them and the insurgents in Iraq that targeted the US military. They were commonly branded as terrorists.

[Darth Rotor]

Carlos. Sure he is a killer, but he is not the super terrorist he is portrayed to be in pop culture. He got lucky and got some good press.
He got support and "a blind eye turned" from some Eastern bloc governments, and some Arab governments. That's a bit more than luck and good press. As to super terrorist, that's part of what the press does: create myths and legends. See sports journalism for the best examples of that, or looking at it in a different light. Chavez' movie production studio.
I am not convinced that there is a hard and fixed definition that you can use to differentiate them and the insurgents in Iraq that targeted the US military. They were commonly branded as terrorists.
By whom?

[ponderingturtle]

If we are to believe his Wiki bio article, he was weaned on class struggle and Marxist/Leninist demagoguery. Obviously, his mother and father wanted to teach their children well. :rolleyes: His book (possible ghost written) is doubtless worth a read for the standard America bashers ...

??? The king david bombing and Carlos are two different events. The first was bombing of a hotel by jewish terrorists to get the british to leave palestine.

And sure Carlos might have had marxist parents, but what is so suprising about middle class marxists?


He's probably right about that last bit, but then, that's been true, as was previously pointed out, since people got on to the idea of using bombs.

Guy Fawkes ...

It was more about how terrorists use the media, so bombing as a media event not a bombing to primarily kill the people it bombs.

[ponderingturtle]

He got support and "a blind eye turned" from some Eastern bloc governments, and some Arab governments. That's a bit more than luck and good press. As to super terrorist, that's part of what the press does: create myths and legends. See sports journalism for the best examples of that, or looking at it in a different light. Chavez' movie production studio.

Sure. It also served the countries he hit. It masks their mistakes my saying not that they made mistakes but that he is some super competent individual. He isn't he got lucky.

I don't respect him at all, but his immage and his fact are vastly different.


By whom?

Media and some of the DOD defintions of terrorist. Not sure if they are sticking by the definition now of any non state actors who use non conventional techniques.

There was little effort to differentiate between say people using roadside bombs to attack military convoys, a perfectly legitimate military goal, and those who bombed mosques.

[Darth Rotor]

??? The king david bombing and Carlos are two different events.
No kidding. That is why I ignored your first ref to it. ;)
And sure Carlos might have had marxist parents, but what is so suprising about middle class marxists?
Nothing.
It was more about how terrorists use the media, so bombing as a media event not a bombing to primarily kill the people it bombs.
No, you do both, it's not an either or. It's a more effective media event when the blood flows. More dire. More grisly. More FEAR and TERROR inspiring. Terrorism, ya see. :)

Dr

[ponderingturtle]

No, you do both, it's not an either or. It's a more effective media event when the blood flows. More dire. More grisly. More FEAR and TERROR inspiring. Terrorism, ya see. :)

Dr

Sure, but how much are the perpetrators of that bombing being considered as brutal murderous terrorists, and how much are they thought of as heroes? They certainly were never had to face trial.

[theprestige]

but humorous.
We should be so lucky.

[Darth Rotor]

Sure, but how much are the perpetrators of that bombing being considered as brutal murderous terrorists, and how much are they thought of as heroes? They certainly were never had to face trial.
Carlos is a big hero in France, is he not? :rolleyes:

[ponderingturtle]

Carlos is a big hero in France, is he not? :rolleyes:

That was not dirrected at Carlos as I suspect you knew.

[Travis]

Not unlike beauty, the definition of a terrorist is in the eye/politics of the beholder.

Is there any ideology that you support that you would consider as so important that deliberately killing civilians is a reasonable means to achieve it? I can't think of any that I would.


I'm sure there are many in the world that might consider President Bush to be a terrorist, and that our actions in Iraq to be a mass example of genocidal terrorism.

...and they would be wrong. Since Bush never explicitly asked for civilians to be killed and US policy never advocated it either.

[Praktik]

Right, but here's how someone like XboxWarrior would see it:

There was foreknowledge that civilians would be killed in bombing raids, through misidentification, bad intelligence, battlefield errors like getting trajectories wrong - etc.

So in that this knowledge was there, you could say that in some respects the US war policy in Iraq was logically going to kill civilians, ergo, Bush deliberately started something he knew would kill civilians.

And then he justified this cost as worth it.

While I may not agree with Xboxwarrior on much of what he says I can definitely say I don't think the cost was worth it, and there is some distance between the American people and the price paid by Iraqis for what was perceived as the American self-interest.

But that's another thread. This still is the kernel of truth under the "Bush = terrorist" claims, however jingoistic these appeals may be.

[ponderingturtle]

Right, but here's how someone like XboxWarrior would see it:

There was foreknowledge that civilians would be killed in bombing raids, through misidentification, bad intelligence, battlefield errors like getting trajectories wrong - etc.

Or willful intent like firebombing tokyo.

No one acted in an acceptable manner by modern standards in WWII.

[Skeptic]

No one acted in an acceptable manner by modern standards in WWII.

As far as I am concerned, the Red Army acted in a perfectly acceptable manner when it released my family members from Hitler's death camps.

[Eddie Dane]

As far as I am concerned, the Red Army acted in a perfectly acceptable manner when it released my family members from Hitler's death camps.

...and then arrested the just freed Russian POW's for treason and put them on a train to Siberia for some extra concentration camp fun.

Skeptic, they did good things. But no WWII party lives up to today's ethical standards.

[Skeptic]

I'm not saying they didn't do that. I'm just annoyed at the moral equivalency implied.

[Praktik]

...and then arrested the just freed Russian POW's for treason and put them on a train to Siberia for some extra concentration camp fun.

Skeptic, they did good things. But no WWII party lives up to today's ethical standards.

Indeed, one of the most jarring examples would be the allies leaving homosexuals in prison after the defeat of germany: "Well the Nazis were wrong about a lot of things, but at least they were right on that."

Just found out about that a few months ago and was shocked to hear that as others were given their freedom, homosexuals were left to serve out the remainder of their "sentences" handed down under Nazi persecution.

[MikeMangum]

Um, Israelis honor their terrorists, so why can't Chavez honor his heros?

After a few months on this forums, I've yet to see a single post from you that didn't reference Israel, Zionists, or Jews regardless of the topic of the thread.

You might want to consider the implications.

[Grizzly Bear]

You blow up a few cafe's and throw a couple of hand grenades in to a metro or two and BOOM, everybody think you're a bad guy.

Thank god we have enlightened world leaders like Chavez to set the record straight.
Well when he's doing nothing about the crime rates in his country he's definitely showing us all what "model citizenship" is all about. ;)

[Thunder]

After a few months on this forums, I've yet to see a single post from you that didn't reference Israel, Zionists, or Jews regardless of the topic of the thread.


well then, your reading and search of my many posts is clearly highly selective. but whatever helps prove your point, right?

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5347468#post5347468
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5347258#post5347258
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5347203#post5347203
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5347121#post5347121
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5347101#post5347101
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5347097#post5347097
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5347056#post5347056

....11,000 more where those came from.

I gotta say, sometimes proving people wrong is soooo much fun.

:p

[Thunder]

still waiting for that apology.

[MikeMangum]

still waiting for that apology.

It was very simple: I never claimed that you hadn't made any posts that refer to Jews, Israel, or Zionists, I stated that I hadn't seen any posts from (on any of the threads that I had read) that didn't in some way involve Jews, Zionists, or Israel.

Now I have.

I am rather unsure why Israel was brought up in the context of this thread.

[Thunder]

It was very simple: I never claimed that you hadn't made any posts that refer to Jews, Israel, or Zionists, I stated that I hadn't seen any posts from (on any of the threads that I had read) that didn't in some way involve Jews, Zionists, or Israel.

Now I have.

I am rather unsure why Israel was brought up in the context of this thread.

it was a little poking of a certain member.

[Whiplash]

Indeed, one of the most jarring examples would be the allies leaving homosexuals in prison after the defeat of germany: "Well the Nazis were wrong about a lot of things, but at least they were right on that."

Just found out about that a few months ago and was shocked to hear that as others were given their freedom, homosexuals were left to serve out the remainder of their "sentences" handed down under Nazi persecution.


Is this not judging the past, where standards were different, through a prism of today's ideas and standards?

Reminds me of the whole "George Washington had slaves!" mentality.

These things were still wrong, but it was a different era. I'm not suggesting they are fully forgivable. Just not as completely heinous as they are made out to be, by today's standards. People doing wrong things for the sake of wrong is one thing. People doing wrong things, but thinking they are doing something right, because that is the prevailing opinion of all around them.. that's a bit different.

[Thunder]

Indeed, one of the most jarring examples would be the allies leaving homosexuals in prison after the defeat of germany: "Well the Nazis were wrong about a lot of things, but at least they were right on that."

Just found out about that a few months ago and was shocked to hear that as others were given their freedom, homosexuals were left to serve out the remainder of their "sentences" handed down under Nazi persecution.

can u provide a source for this? i am appalled.

[cornsail]

Anyone still want to defend this guy[/URL]?

I'll defend Chavez when warranted. I don't see him in black/white (all good or all bad).

[Praktik]

can u provide a source for this? i am appalled.

here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_homosexuals_in_Nazi_Germany_and_the _Holocaust#Post-War)

[DarthFishy]

I'm not an expert on any of these characters (though I do live next door to Bob Mugabe), but I was chatting to a Ugandan friend of mine who says that while Idi Amin was definitely not a nice chap, a lot of what was mentioned about him was hyperbole and exaggeration.

It was interesting for me to hear this from someone who had a little bit of a closer experience within living under Idi Amin's rule. I must admit that I had also heard of Idi Amin as a horrible cruel dictator, so a differing opinion was interesting for me to hear about...

[funk de fino]

Still no takers from the Chavistas of JREF?

Quelle surprise............

[timhau]

I'm looking forward to posts from Idi Amin apologists.

Aww, he wasn't such a bad guy. It's just that it was so hard getting chicken in Uganda...

[DarthFishy]

Just to clarify I'm not defending Idi Amin (I don't know enough about what happened), just pointing out an anecdote :)

[Eddie Dane]

Just to clarify I'm not defending Idi Amin (I don't know enough about what happened), just pointing out an anecdote :)

there is a documentary about Amin, made in the seventies.
He's interviewed extensively and appears to me to be barking mad and not very bright. (I think Forest Whittaker did a good impression of him in last King Of Scotland)

When the film was released, Amin was not pleased with the result and kidnapped a whole bunch of French nationals to force the director to re-edit the film.

I'll have a look for it tonight, I'm at work now.

[timhau]

He's interviewed extensively and appears to me to be barking mad and not very bright.

From Amin's Wikipedia entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idi_amin):

One officer said of him: "Idi Amin is a splendid type and a good (rugby) player, but virtually bone from the neck up, and needs things explained in words of one letter".

[Eddie Dane]

From Amin's Wikipedia entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idi_amin):

I find it surprising he got that far.

His dictator colleagues such as Mobutu and Mugabe were/are intellectually sharp people. Just a bit lacking in the erm... moral department.

Old Idi didn't last very long, of course.
One year after he announced his plan to invade Israel, the Tanzanian army rolled him up like a cheap carpet.

[ponderingturtle]

As far as I am concerned, the Red Army acted in a perfectly acceptable manner when it released my family members from Hitler's death camps.

And there is nothing wrong with incinerating cities.

[ponderingturtle]

I'm not saying they didn't do that. I'm just annoyed at the moral equivalency implied.

Why are modern terrorists so bad? Sure they target civilians but so did all the strategic bombing campaigns in WWII. If they could start a good old fashion firestrom in a major city it would bring back the good old days...

[ponderingturtle]

Is this not judging the past, where standards were different, through a prism of today's ideas and standards?

Reminds me of the whole "George Washington had slaves!" mentality.

These things were still wrong, but it was a different era. I'm not suggesting they are fully forgivable. Just not as completely heinous as they are made out to be, by today's standards. People doing wrong things for the sake of wrong is one thing. People doing wrong things, but thinking they are doing something right, because that is the prevailing opinion of all around them.. that's a bit different.

The thing is that in terms of their resources why are the attacks of 9/11 so fundamentaly different that say firebombing Tokyo? Other than being much less destructive with comparatively minor loss of life?