Venezuela Seeks Extradition of Pat Robertson for Terrorism

[MiamiFlorida]

Sorry to say so, but you seem to mix a bit things here.. FARC, Chavez, terrorists, Colombians, Carilles,...


That is because they are all connected. If you feel the need to have it explained to you, I will go into more detail when time permits.

So, we're talking Venezuela, let's keep the debate there.

Let the debate commence. Do you have something to contribute...a rebuttal with facts maybe...???

1/ You say the FARC guerilla are guests in Venezuela. I read a lot on this country, but I never found any proof of that, except of the course the occasional accusation without any proof. Cheney tried it once again lately when Chavez bought rifles. If you have something a bit more convincing, I'll be glad to hear it.

Oh, I've "read" a lot on this country too...and worked there, and lived there, and have relatives there. Tell me....what have you "read" on this country? To use your own rules...let's talk about Venezuela and keep Cheney out of it.

2/ You talk 'bout the practices of the FARC, then continue with "the stock and trade of Chavez"? Would you be kind enough to explain to me the link? Did Chavez put a bomb around anyone's neck?

Mr. Chávez, " El Golpista" (Coup d'etat author) provides safe haven, money, weapons and ideological support to the F.A.R.C. That is the stock and trade of terrorists.


3/ Possada Carilles escaped jail in Venezuela. Escaping from jail is illegal, whatever the country. It's not because you think he's innocent that he's got the right to escape.Would you accept that Mumma escapes?

Posada Carriles was found innocent in not one, but two trials in Venezuela, and kept in jail anyway. The government had no right to hold him. I would say he had the right to escape...wouldn't you? Remember presumption of innocence?

4/ The government of Venezuela is a democracy, and it has been recalled numerous times lately. Chavez not only won every election, but he won it with a very comfortable margin. Maybe that's because he really cares 'bout his people, even the poor? Just a guess.

The government of Venezuela is a democracy (We have Hugo Chávez' word for it), whose subsequent referendums have been tainted. (more on that later). This democracy, however is not a liberal democracy, where the rights and freedoms of individual minorities are protected. Liberal democracies are characterized by pluralism and tolerance.

The rights to private ownership, and freedom of speech and assembly are systematically violated. Opposing newspapers, television and radio stations have been shut down or "nationalized". People who refuse to join Chavez' party are excluded from all government benefits.

And even if all the gross violations of human rights were absent, Venezuela has no right to interfere in the affairs of Colombia and make a mockery out of their sovereignty.

If you ask Castro, he too has a democracy. Cubans vote for him every year

Your post is more of a work of fiction than a fact-based op-ed, I'm afraid.

So far, the only thing I've read is your opinion. Must be all that French literature, I guess. How about more arguments with substance and less rhetoric?

US News and World Report:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/993592/posts

Washington Times:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20050316-084146-3058r.htm

National review:

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-ehrenfeld082102.asp

Cato Institute

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3675

Since you like foreign language posts:

Ilustración Liberal

http://www.lailustracionliberal.com/

From Plinio Apuleyo Mendoza

http://www.lailustracionliberal.com/

Hugo Chávez' letter to the Supreme Court of Venezuela:

http://www.lailustracionliberal.com/

There are a few dozen more I'd like to show you, but I'd like to see yours first. En Anglais, s'il vous plait.:mrgreen:

 

[epr64]

Sorry to say so, but you seem to mix a bit things here.. FARC, Chavez, terrorists, Colombians, Carilles,...


That is because they are all connected. If you feel the need to have it explained to you, I will go into more detail when time permits.

Please do. There are links, as they all are present and active in SA, but connections? I'll be glad to see what you have.

So, we're talking Venezuela, let's keep the debate there.

Let the debate commence. Do you have something to contribute...a rebuttal with facts maybe...???

1/ You say the FARC guerilla are guests in Venezuela. I read a lot on this country, but I never found any proof of that, except of the course the occasional accusation without any proof. Cheney tried it once again lately when Chavez bought rifles. If you have something a bit more convincing, I'll be glad to hear it.

Oh, I've "read" a lot on this country too...and worked there, and lived there, and have relatives there. Tell me....what have you "read" on this country? To use your own rules...let's talk about Venezuela and keep Cheney out of it.

Hmmm. Sorry, but I asked first . Cheney was just mentionned as an example. I will take the time to read the links you provided (when time permits). And I will provide you with some others (I'll try to find the english ones.. but some will be in French, as it's my mother tongue).

2/ You talk 'bout the practices of the FARC, then continue with "the stock and trade of Chavez"? Would you be kind enough to explain to me the link? Did Chavez put a bomb around anyone's neck?

Mr. Chávez, " El Golpista" (Coup d'etat author) provides safe haven, money, weapons and ideological support to the F.A.R.C. That is the stock and trade of terrorists.

Well, I suppose there are links below that prove he provides all that to the FARC. Funnily, I NEVER found any proof of that, just opinions. And for me, even repeated opinions do NOT constitute a proof.

3/ Possada Carilles escaped jail in Venezuela. Escaping from jail is illegal, whatever the country. It's not because you think he's innocent that he's got the right to escape.Would you accept that Mumma escapes?

Posada Carriles was found innocent in not one, but two trials in Venezuela, and kept in jail anyway. The government had no right to hold him. I would say he had the right to escape...wouldn't you? Remember presumption of innocence?

He was kept in jail because there was an appeal procedure going on. People considered as dangerous or able to escape are kept in jail during the process of the law. The proof he was able to escape... is that he did. And he was considered as dangerous because he's accused of a terrorist act. I thought you americans didn't like terrorist acts?

4/ The government of Venezuela is a democracy, and it has been recalled numerous times lately. Chavez not only won every election, but he won it with a very comfortable margin. Maybe that's because he really cares 'bout his people, even the poor? Just a guess.

The government of Venezuela is a democracy (We have Hugo Chávez' word for it), whose subsequent referendums have been tainted. (more on that later). This democracy, however is not a liberal democracy, where the rights and freedoms of individual minorities are protected. Liberal democracies are characterized by pluralism and tolerance.

What minorities are you talking about? In the pre-bolivarian govts, only the minority had rights. Now, the majority also has rights. Is that what makes it a non-"liberal democracy"?

The rights to private ownership, and freedom of speech and assembly are systematically violated. Opposing newspapers, television and radio stations have been shut down or "nationalized". People who refuse to join Chavez' party are excluded from all government benefits.

And of course, you have proofs for that? The only proof I had of the closure of media since Chavez took power:
1/ one station didn't respect the law concerning the wavelenght and power of their broadcsaring station, and their license (for one part of the country) was revoked. It has been granted again, once they proved they respected the law.
2/ the national TV and the communautary radios have all been closed down for 2 days. Unfortunately, it was by Pedro the brief, during his 2 days at the head of the state after the coup in 2002.

If you have something else, let me know.
Furthermore, the private media had a central role in the 2002 coup, calling for the murder of Chavez, etc.. NONE has been shut down when Chavez came back to power due to the popular uprising that took Pedro the brief out. If CNN called for the overthrowing and murder of Bush and all the BA, how long would they be able to emit before being turned down?

Just a quote concerning the so-called non-existing free press in Venezuela:

Reacting to this comment, Ambassador Alvarez pointed out that the U.S.-government TV channel Voice of America is broadcast on all Venezuelan cable and satellite carriers. Also, Fox News and CNN International are both broadcast on cable and satellite carriers in Venezuela. Venezuela’s main private TV stations, Venevisión and Globovisión, which are broadcast via the airwaves, also present the conservative Miami program of Andrés Oppenheimer and CNN en español on a regular basis. All this is in addition to the general anti-Chavez bias of all of Venezuela’s private broadcasters, which dominate the airwaves.

The link is here.


As far as the right to private property is concerned, Chavez took unused fields and gave them to the people who were dying of hunger just alongside them. You find that a violation of human rights? And the companies seized and given over to the communities are companies that are idle since years. The owners have been compensated. Once again, would you prefer seeing people die of hunger just because "the right to private property"? What do you think of the people looting food in NO (I say FOOD, not PS2s)?

And even if all the gross violations of human rights were absent, Venezuela has no right to interfere in the affairs of Colombia and make a mockery out of their sovereignty.

As long as Columbia interferes with Venezuela, why not?? As far as I can remember, Columbia, without informing Venezuela that a FARC commander was in Caracas, sent columbian police and bought Venezuelian soldiers to kidnap Rodrigo Granda. That is an unacceptable violation of the sovereignty of a country. THE solution was to request the help of the venezuelian govt to arrest and extradite him.
And let's not forget the 130 columbian paramilitary arrested by venezuelian troops.

If you ask Castro, he too has a democracy. Cubans vote for him every year

And the last referendum (referendums allowing elected officials to be thrown out of office at mid-term, that were introduced in the bolivarian constitution by Chavez. That's hardly the mark of a dictator, IMO) was certified by your own president Carter.

But former US President Jimmy Carter endorsed the results, saying they tallied with the findings of his referendum monitoring team.

Link is here.

Your post is more of a work of fiction than a fact-based op-ed, I'm afraid.

So far, the only thing I've read is your opinion. Must be all that French literature, I guess. How about more arguments with substance and less rhetoric?

Hmmm. Just antoher lame attempt at french-bashing? Why am I not surprised by this?

US News and World Report:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/993592/posts

Washington Times:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20050316-084146-3058r.htm

National review:

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-ehrenfeld082102.asp

Cato Institute

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3675

Since you like foreign language posts:

Ilustración Liberal

http://www.lailustracionliberal.com/

From Plinio Apuleyo Mendoza

http://www.lailustracionliberal.com/

Hugo Chávez' letter to the Supreme Court of Venezuela:

http://www.lailustracionliberal.com/

There are a few dozen more I'd like to show you, but I'd like to see yours first. En Anglais, s'il vous plait.:mrgreen:[/QUOTE]

As I said earlier, I will read these when time permits. And I will provide some more links.

CU
Y

 

[ludahai]

He was kept in jail because there was an appeal procedure going on. People considered as dangerous or able to escape are kept in jail during the process of the law. The proof he was able to escape... is that he did. And he was considered as dangerous because he's accused of a terrorist act. I thought you americans didn't like terrorist acts?

Nor are Americans particularly fond of double jeopardy (unless Alex Trebek is hosting)

Once again, would you prefer seeing people die of hunger just because "the right to private property"? What do you think of the people looting food in NO (I say FOOD, not PS2s)?

According to authorities, MOST looting has NOT been food. I have heard that police and other officials had already taken much of the food fordistribution. Having said that, in such an emergency, I don't have a problem with those taking only food, water and medicine necessary for survival.

And the last referendum (referendums allowing elected officials to be thrown out of office at mid-term, that were introduced in the bolivarian constitution by Chavez. That's hardly the mark of a dictator, IMO) was certified by your own president Carter.

I don't put a lot of stock in certifications by "President Peanut" (as he is known in Taiwan.)

 

[epr64]

Nor are Americans particularly fond of double jeopardy (unless Alex Trebek is hosting)

Sorry. I'm not american, and I don't understand your reference.

According to authorities, MOST looting has NOT been food. I have heard that police and other officials had already taken much of the food fordistribution. Having said that, in such an emergency, I don't have a problem with those taking only food, water and medicine necessary for survival.

I agree with you. If people need to food, clean water and medicine, it's just normal under those circumstances that they take it. In a sense, that's also what happened in Venezuela. Unused land and unused factories have been taken over by the poor in order to live.

I don't put a lot of stock in certifications by "President Peanut" (as he is known in Taiwan.)

You are entitled to your opinion on anyone. The certification process was not done only by Carter, but also by other organisations. The only ones that declared fraud.. were the opposition, and without any proof.
CU
Y

 

[MiamiFlorida]

Hmmm. Sorry, but I asked first . Cheney was just mentionned as an example. I will take the time to read the links you provided (when time permits). And I will provide you with some others (I'll try to find the english ones.. but some will be in French, as it's my mother tongue).

And I answered you. I await your response....and oh.......I have tons in Spanish.....MY mother tongue.

Speaking of your mother tongue....have you read Jean- Francois Revel?Probably your country's best political analyst on South America.

Well, I suppose there are links below that prove he provides all that to the FARC. Funnily, I NEVER found any proof of that, just opinions. And for me, even repeated opinions do NOT constitute a proof.

I've never seen an atom...but I know they exist. And......entre vous et moi.... the only one who has provided opinions exclusively in this thread is you.

He was kept in jail because there was an appeal procedure going on. People considered as dangerous or able to escape are kept in jail during the process of the law. The proof he was able to escape... is that he did. And he was considered as dangerous because he's accused of a terrorist act. I thought you americans didn't like terrorist acts?

He was kept in jail (contrary to the Venezuelan Constitution) after twice being exonerated....to please Fidel Castro. And to bring you up on the case a little...just a little.....Mr. Carriles' lawyer presented a video by "El Mono Morales" filmed just before his death in which he testifies that he acted alone and that Carriles had no part in, or knowledge of the plot. It should be noted that Carriles and Morales were bitter enemies. Of course, you are not going to read that in "Le Figaro". We saw it on national television.

What minorities are you talking about? In the pre-bolivarian govts, only the minority had rights. Now, the majority also has rights. Is that what makes it a non-"liberal democracy"?

First of all.....please don't use the term "Bolivarian Governments". Hugo Chávez' ideas are as far removed from those of Simon Bolívar as George Washington's were from Karl Marx's.

Second, I am not defending previous governments. Thirty years ago there was not a single democracy in Latin America...today all but one are democratic. I am talking about the gross violations of human rights commited by his government. And as for the majority having rights....well, as long as they belong to his party.....and depending on who's telling the story. We've got a half a million Venezuelans here in South Florida.... the great majority of them blue-collar workers.....and they ALL tell a very different story.


How about you producing some stuff instead of making me work so that you can rebutt with opinions and nothing else? When you do....don't worry. I NEVER make a statement before I am prepared to answer the rebuttal.

If you have something else, let me know.

I got plenty. Where's yours?


Furthermore, the private media had a central role in the 2002 coup, calling for the murder of Chavez, etc.. NONE has been shut down when Chavez came back to power due to the popular uprising that took Pedro the brief out. If CNN called for the overthrowing and murder of Bush and all the BA, how long would they be able to emit before being turned down?

That's funny. I've never heard any of that....hmmmm...journalists involved in murder plots....even for Latin America that's a little far-fetched. Care to point me to a link?

And.....the "private media"???????.....there's ONLY private media. Everything else is a propaganda machine.

Just a quote concerning the so-called non-existing free press in Venezuela:

Are you for real???? Pointing me to a Venezuelan government-run publication? While you are at it, why don't you quote Castro's "Granma"


The only comments on the link are from members of Chavez' government. That's a source?

And Jimmy Carter personally supervised the Venezuelan elections? How did he manage to be at thousands of polling stations all at once? Why did Chavez refuse International observers?

As far as the right to private property is concerned, Chavez took unused fields and gave them to the people who were dying of hunger just alongside them. You find that a violation of human rights? And the companies seized and given over to the communities are companies that are idle since years. The owners have been compensated. Once again, would you prefer seeing people die of hunger just because "the right to private property"? What do you think of the people looting food in NO (I say FOOD, not PS2s)?

I'm sure that if you keep repeating that you will convince yourself. In the meantime, I eagerly await your sources....and don't worry about mine. I've got plenty for you.


As long as Columbia interferes with Venezuela, why not?? As far as I can remember, Columbia, without informing Venezuela that a FARC commander was in Caracas, sent columbian police and bought Venezuelian soldiers to kidnap Rodrigo Granda. That is an unacceptable violation of the sovereignty of a country. THE solution was to request the help of the venezuelian govt to arrest and extradite him.
And let's not forget the 130 columbian paramilitary arrested by venezuelian troops.

By the way: It's Colombia.........Now Colombia is interferring with Venezuela?
I suppose Israel violated Argentina's sovereignty when they kidnapped Adolf Eichman, right? And....didn't you say there was no proof of the F.A.R.C. in Venezuela? How do you request the "help" of a government that aids and abets terrorists?

Paramilitaries are the same garbage as F.A.R.C. What's that got to do with what we are talking about?


And the last referendum (referendums allowing elected officials to be thrown out of office at mid-term, that were introduced in the bolivarian constitution by Chavez. That's hardly the mark of a dictator, IMO) was certified by your own president Carter.

Really?????? Who told you that??????. As for Carter...I already covered that.

Hmmm. Just antoher lame attempt at french-bashing? Why am I not surprised by this?

Explain that comment.:think:

 

[MiamiFlorida]

Nor are Americans particularly fond of double jeopardy (unless Alex Trebek is hosting)




According to authorities, MOST looting has NOT been food. I have heard that police and other officials had already taken much of the food fordistribution. Having said that, in such an emergency, I don't have a problem with those taking only food, water and medicine necessary for survival.



I don't put a lot of stock in certifications by "President Peanut" (as he is known in Taiwan.)

Good answer.

Since our friend is not acquainted with "Double Jeopardy", I will explain it to him:

In the U.S. and in most American countries...including Venezuela (if they obeyed their constitution)...you cannot be tried again for a crime once you have been found innocent.

In Carriles' case it wouldn't be Double, but Triple Jeopardy.

I see we've got pretty close definitions. In Latin America he's known as "The Peanut Vendor".

 

[ludahai]

Sorry. I'm not american, and I don't understand your reference.

Double Jeopardy is being tried twice for the same crime. It is unconstitutional in the United States.

 

[Calm2Chaos]

As little as I care about Pat.. I am not giving an American Citizen up to anybody. Tough Sh it, ya don't like it go to the UN and complain... They like that there....:rofl

 

[epr64]

Hmmm. Sorry, but I asked first . Cheney was just mentionned as an example. I will take the time to read the links you provided (when time permits). And I will provide you with some others (I'll try to find the english ones.. but some will be in French, as it's my mother tongue).

And I answered you. I await your response....and oh.......I have tons in Spanish.....MY mother tongue.

Hmmm. OK. You require links proving there are no FARCs (with the help of the venezuelian govt) in Venezuela? But you don't accept links with any ties to the venezuelian govt? But you allow yourself to include links to freerepublic.com?

Interesting.

Will the state dept of the US do?

Question: There are reports that Venezuela’s Minister of Interior signed documents agreeing to provide oil and gas to the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) in exchange for the FARC’s agreement not to kidnap anyone in Venezuela. Is there any truth to these reports? If true, would such an agreement suggest that the Government of Venezuela supports terrorism?

Answer: We have no information to confirm or deny these reports. According to our law, we have designated the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), the National Liberation Army (ELN), and the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia (AUC) to be foreign terrorist organizations. We have been very clear in our discussions with Venezuelan leaders -- as we have with leaders throughout the Western Hemisphere and across the globe -- that we strongly oppose any support, from whatever source, for terrorist organizations.

The link is here.

Speaking of your mother tongue....have you read Jean- Francois Revel?Probably your country's best political analyst on South America.

I don't need to read him. One of the most right-wing french philosophers cannot be unknown. I see why you like him, and you know why I don't.

Well, I suppose there are links below that prove he provides all that to the FARC. Funnily, I NEVER found any proof of that, just opinions. And for me, even repeated opinions do NOT constitute a proof.

I've never seen an atom...but I know they exist. And......entre vous et moi.... the only one who has provided opinions exclusively in this thread is you.

And the US state dept. But OK. YOU gave definite proofs, .. atoms of it. :roll:

He was kept in jail because there was an appeal procedure going on. People considered as dangerous or able to escape are kept in jail during the process of the law. The proof he was able to escape... is that he did. And he was considered as dangerous because he's accused of a terrorist act. I thought you americans didn't like terrorist acts?

He was kept in jail (contrary to the Venezuelan Constitution) after twice being exonerated....to please Fidel Castro. And to bring you up on the case a little...just a little.....Mr. Carriles' lawyer presented a video by "El Mono Morales" filmed just before his death in which he testifies that he acted alone and that Carriles had no part in, or knowledge of the plot. It should be noted that Carriles and Morales were bitter enemies. Of course, you are not going to read that in "Le Figaro". We saw it on national television.

Well.. A trial. An appeal. And finally before the supreme court. That makes three trial IN ONE. I think you DO have the same. The Venezuelian govt didn't keep him because they "wanted to please Castro", but because the case was NOT ended. But I see that you would like to see Mumia Abu-Jamal liberated, as he already went through trial and appeal. That's double jeopardy for you?

What minorities are you talking about? In the pre-bolivarian govts, only the minority had rights. Now, the majority also has rights. Is that what makes it a non-"liberal democracy"?

First of all.....please don't use the term "Bolivarian Governments". Hugo Chávez' ideas are as far removed from those of Simon Bolívar as George Washington's were from Karl Marx's.

Second, I am not defending previous governments. Thirty years ago there was not a single democracy in Latin America...today all but one are democratic. I am talking about the gross violations of human rights commited by his government. And as for the majority having rights....well, as long as they belong to his party.....and depending on who's telling the story. We've got a half a million Venezuelans here in South Florida.... the great majority of them blue-collar workers.....and they ALL tell a very different story.

You're not defending anything here, IMO. You're stating that Chavez is undemocratic (unproved, except a contrario when his constitution allows to throw out an elected official at mid-mandate), that he's a brutal dictator (unproved, except a conbtrario when he is systematically re-elected every time), that only those who support him have rights (Please, tell me WHO involved in the 2002 coup is in jail? If you want to talk about Carlos Ortega, who is responsible for sabotaging oil installations, or about Carlos Andrés Pérez, who was already prosecuted for embezzlement, for ordering to shoot on the people during the riots against the IMF policies, and who declared that "Chavez should be killed like a dog" (although this last one is NOT retained against him in a court of justice), then of course, yes. And I don't even talk 'bout "Pedro the Brief".. Who asked asylum in Columbia. How strange? They have less rights than the "indios y neros" who elected Chavez and kept him in power druing 9 elections in a row). But 20 of the 22 states in Venezuela voting for Chavez is nothing? I don't agree.

How about you producing some stuff instead of making me work so that you can rebutt with opinions and nothing else? When you do....don't worry. I NEVER make a statement before I am prepared to answer the rebuttal.

If you have something else, let me know.

I got plenty. Where's yours?

OK. Your first link is for freerepublic, I won't even comment it.
You second link shows that a lot of people that hate Mr Chavez have a lot of things to say and nothing to prove it. They are "concerned", they "think", .. they have NOTHING. Why does that remind me of the deep "concern" of Mr Blair that Iraq could incinerate London in 45 minutes?
The third link states that Venezuela is part of the Triborder region. I won't dispute that. It also has NOTHING to do with the discussion.
As for the fourth link, the one to the CATO institute..
Here is the "about us" part of the site:

Cato's Mission

The Cato Institute seeks to broaden the parameters of public policy debate to allow consideration of the traditional American principles of limited government, individual liberty, free markets and peace. Toward that goal, the Institute strives to achieve greater involvement of the intelligent, concerned lay public in questions of policy and the proper role of government.

Sorry, I won't read the others. I'm fed of your links.

Furthermore, the private media had a central role in the 2002 coup, calling for the murder of Chavez, etc.. NONE has been shut down when Chavez came back to power due to the popular uprising that took Pedro the brief out. If CNN called for the overthrowing and murder of Bush and all the BA, how long would they be able to emit before being turned down?

That's funny. I've never heard any of that....hmmmm...journalists involved in murder plots....even for Latin America that's a little far-fetched. Care to point me to a link?

And.....the "private media"???????.....there's ONLY private media. Everything else is a propaganda machine.

LOL. You have 13 national TV channels.. And only ONE is private?
Let me remind you something..

During the 2002 coup, RCTV and globovision (both private channels, widely distributed in Venezuela) accused the government of crimes against humanity and Chavez of being an assasin.
They are alive and kicking.. Would they still be in the US? Nope. The private TVs (some 80 percent of the TV stations in Venezuela) were deeply involved during the coup. And they are still there. THAT'S the trademark of a dictator, ain't it? :roll:

Just a quote concerning the so-called non-existing free press in Venezuela:

Are you for real???? Pointing me to a Venezuelan government-run publication? While you are at it, why don't you quote Castro's "Granma"


The only comments on the link are from members of Chavez' government. That's a source?

Comb your own sources before saying something like this.

And Jimmy Carter personally supervised the Venezuelan elections? How did he manage to be at thousands of polling stations all at once? Why did Chavez refuse International observers?

1/ Bush did the same, if you remember.. How strange that doesn't affect you.
2/ Not only the Carter foundation, but also the OAS did recognize the results. But César Gaviria is of course a banana vendor, huh?

You just can't recognise that the PEOPLE of a country elect their leaders, as long as they are not Fulgencio Batista, I suppose.

TBF

 

[epr64]

As far as the right to private property is concerned, Chavez took unused fields and gave them to the people who were dying of hunger just alongside them. You find that a violation of human rights? And the companies seized and given over to the communities are companies that are idle since years. The owners have been compensated. Once again, would you prefer seeing people die of hunger just because "the right to private property"? What do you think of the people looting food in NO (I say FOOD, not PS2s)?

I'm sure that if you keep repeating that you will convince yourself. In the meantime, I eagerly await your sources....and don't worry about mine. I've got plenty for you.

Then please provide. If you could let extreme-right sources apart, I would like it.

As long as Columbia interferes with Venezuela, why not?? As far as I can remember, Columbia, without informing Venezuela that a FARC commander was in Caracas, sent columbian police and bought Venezuelian soldiers to kidnap Rodrigo Granda. That is an unacceptable violation of the sovereignty of a country. THE solution was to request the help of the venezuelian govt to arrest and extradite him.
And let's not forget the 130 columbian paramilitary arrested by venezuelian troops.

By the way: It's Colombia.........Now Colombia is interferring with Venezuela?
I suppose Israel violated Argentina's sovereignty when they kidnapped Adolf Eichman, right? And....didn't you say there was no proof of the F.A.R.C. in Venezuela? How do you request the "help" of a government that aids and abets terrorists?

Paramilitaries are the same garbage as F.A.R.C. What's that got to do with what we are talking about?

Once again, nothing. You SAY that chavez aids and abates the FARC, but you're unable to counter what the states dept of the US said. I suppose you know more on this than Mr Bush. Why don't you propose your help.. Just NOT the Possada Carilles way, if you don't mind..

And the last referendum (referendums allowing elected officials to be thrown out of office at mid-term, that were introduced in the bolivarian constitution by Chavez. That's hardly the mark of a dictator, IMO) was certified by your own president Carter.

Really?????? Who told you that??????. As for Carter...I already covered that.

Who told me what? That Chavez introduced in the constitution that an elected official can be revocked at mid-term? If you look at Venezuealian press, you're supposed to know it. As for Carter, I did cover it also.

Hmmm. Just antoher lame attempt at french-bashing? Why am I not surprised by this?

Explain that comment.:think:

No need....

NOW..

I did my homework. Will you be able to do yours? We'll see.

I don't really expect an anti-cuban militant to think about Venezuela since Chavez accepted the help of Castro for medics and teachers, but maybe you should try to read and understand what happens there?

Y

 

[epr64]

As little as I care about Pat.. I am not giving an American Citizen up to anybody. Tough Sh it, ya don't like it go to the UN and complain... They like that there....:rofl

Noone thinks that the Patty will be sent to Venezuela (although he would probably have a fairer trial than in the US.. Uh wait.. He won't be tried in the US. Sorry :rofl ).

He should be told to become a decent human being, though.

And that's something only YOU can do..

Y

 

[MiamiFlorida]

TBF[/QUOTE]

I don't need to read him. One of the most right-wing french philosophers cannot be unknown. I see why you like him, and you know why I don't.

Why am I not surprised at this answer?. I'm not a communist....yet I've read Karl Marx. I'm sure you've read Debray, right?

Well.. A trial. An appeal. And finally before the supreme court. That makes three trial IN ONE. I think you DO have the same. The Venezuelian govt didn't keep him because they "wanted to please Castro", but because the case was NOT ended. But I see that you would like to see Mumia Abu-Jamal liberated, as he already went through trial and appeal. That's double jeopardy for you?

You better get your facts straight before you start debating Venezuelan judisprudence.


You're not defending anything here, IMO. You're stating that Chavez is undemocratic (unproved, except a contrario when his constitution allows to throw out an elected official at mid-mandate), that he's a brutal dictator (unproved, except a conbtrario when he is systematically re-elected every time), that only those who support him have rights (Please, tell me WHO involved in the 2002 coup is in jail? If you want to talk about Carlos Ortega, who is responsible for sabotaging oil installations, or about Carlos Andrés Pérez, who was already prosecuted for embezzlement, for ordering to shoot on the people during the riots against the IMF policies, and who declared that "Chavez should be killed like a dog" (although this last one is NOT retained against him in a court of justice), then of course, yes. And I don't even talk 'bout "Pedro the Brief".. Who asked asylum in Columbia. How strange? They have less rights than the "indios y neros" who elected Chavez and kept him in power druing 9 elections in a row). But 20 of the 22 states in Venezuela voting for Chavez is nothing? I don't agree.

5520 Executions commited by Chavez Government. (Libertad Digital....a Spanish Newspaper)

http://www.libertaddigital.com/noticias/noticia_1276259762.html

Letter from the O.A.S. to Chávez regarding transparent electoral process.

http://www.oas.org/OASpage/press_releases/press_release.asp?sCodigo=C-
184/04

Human Rights Watch:

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/04/05/venezu10423.htm


But then, of course: "Sorry, I won't read the others. I'm fed of your links."

I've noticed that. You prefer to read directly from Chávez. Very objective indeed.

During the 2002 coup, RCTV and globovision (both private channels, widely distributed in Venezuela) accused the government of crimes against humanity and Chavez of being an assasin.
They are alive and kicking.. Would they still be in the US? Nope. The private TVs (some 80 percent of the TV stations in Venezuela) were deeply involved during the coup. And they are still there. THAT'S the trademark of a dictator, ain't it? :roll:

It's called "Freedom of the Press"....look it up...and by the way, they ceased to exist. Now they are Government propaganda machines.

And to answer your question....yes, they would still be operating in the U.S. or in any other free country!

Comb your own sources before saying something like this.

My sources are a lot more extensive than yours, mon ami.


1/ Bush did the same, if you remember.. How strange that doesn't affect you.
2/ Not only the Carter foundation, but also the OAS did recognize the results.

Read the link I provided you to the OAS.

But César Gaviria is of course a banana vendor, huh?

Wall Street Journal on that:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/wsj/?id=110005509

You just can't recognise that the PEOPLE of a country elect their leaders, as long as they are not Fulgencio Batista, I suppose.

I'm sorry....you lost me there. What does the banana dictator Fulgencio Batista, who died over 40 years ago have to do with Chavez and Venezuela?

You say Jean Francois revel is a right-wing philosopher, huh? Here's a recap:

"Author of several international best sellers over the last 30 years, Jean-François Revel is perhaps best known for Without Marx or Jesus, How Democracies Perish, and The Totalitarian Temptation. He lives in Paris."

Jan-Francois Revel was born in 1924 in Marseilles. He studied philosophy at University and taught it till 1963. Then, after the success of his first book Pourquoi des philosophes, he decided to concentrate on writting books and articles in newspapers.
At the end of the 70's, he became the editor for many years of the influential political weekly L'Express.
He is a member of the Academie Francaise since June 1998.
His books, including the best-seller Without Marx or Jesus and How Democracies Perish, Antiamericanism, have gained worldwide recognition."

And just for you, in French:

http://www.academie-francaise.fr/immortels/base/academiciens/fiche.asp?param=692

 

[Calm2Chaos]

Noone thinks that the Patty will be sent to Venezuela (although he would probably have a fairer trial than in the US.. Uh wait.. He won't be tried in the US. Sorry :rofl ).

He should be told to become a decent human being, though.

And that's something only YOU can do..

Y

Why would he be tried in the US?

And I hate to tell you this ... But I don't know PAT and he don't listen to me

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Robertson f*****d up, now we can't kill this guy even if we wanted to.

 

[epr64]

TBF

I don't need to read him. One of the most right-wing french philosophers cannot be unknown. I see why you like him, and you know why I don't.

Why am I not surprised at this answer?. I'm not a communist....yet I've read Karl Marx. I'm sure you've read Debray, right?

Well.. A trial. An appeal. And finally before the supreme court. That makes three trial IN ONE. I think you DO have the same. The Venezuelian govt didn't keep him because they "wanted to please Castro", but because the case was NOT ended. But I see that you would like to see Mumia Abu-Jamal liberated, as he already went through trial and appeal. That's double jeopardy for you?

You better get your facts straight before you start debating Venezuelan judisprudence.


You're not defending anything here, IMO. You're stating that Chavez is undemocratic (unproved, except a contrario when his constitution allows to throw out an elected official at mid-mandate), that he's a brutal dictator (unproved, except a conbtrario when he is systematically re-elected every time), that only those who support him have rights (Please, tell me WHO involved in the 2002 coup is in jail? If you want to talk about Carlos Ortega, who is responsible for sabotaging oil installations, or about Carlos Andrés Pérez, who was already prosecuted for embezzlement, for ordering to shoot on the people during the riots against the IMF policies, and who declared that "Chavez should be killed like a dog" (although this last one is NOT retained against him in a court of justice), then of course, yes. And I don't even talk 'bout "Pedro the Brief".. Who asked asylum in Columbia. How strange? They have less rights than the "indios y neros" who elected Chavez and kept him in power druing 9 elections in a row). But 20 of the 22 states in Venezuela voting for Chavez is nothing? I don't agree.

5520 Executions commited by Chavez Government. (Libertad Digital....a Spanish Newspaper)

http://www.libertaddigital.com/noticias/noticia_1276259762.html

Letter from the O.A.S. to Chávez regarding transparent electoral process.

http://www.oas.org/OASpage/press_releases/press_release.asp?sCodigo=C-
184/04

Human Rights Watch:

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/04/05/venezu10423.htm


But then, of course: "Sorry, I won't read the others. I'm fed of your links."

I've noticed that. You prefer to read directly from Chávez. Very objective indeed.

During the 2002 coup, RCTV and globovision (both private channels, widely distributed in Venezuela) accused the government of crimes against humanity and Chavez of being an assasin.
They are alive and kicking.. Would they still be in the US? Nope. The private TVs (some 80 percent of the TV stations in Venezuela) were deeply involved during the coup. And they are still there. THAT'S the trademark of a dictator, ain't it? :roll:

It's called "Freedom of the Press"....look it up...and by the way, they ceased to exist. Now they are Government propaganda machines.

And to answer your question....yes, they would still be operating in the U.S. or in any other free country!

Comb your own sources before saying something like this.

My sources are a lot more extensive than yours, mon ami.


1/ Bush did the same, if you remember.. How strange that doesn't affect you.
2/ Not only the Carter foundation, but also the OAS did recognize the results.

Read the link I provided you to the OAS.

But César Gaviria is of course a banana vendor, huh?

Wall Street Journal on that:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/wsj/?id=110005509

You just can't recognise that the PEOPLE of a country elect their leaders, as long as they are not Fulgencio Batista, I suppose.

I'm sorry....you lost me there. What does the banana dictator Fulgencio Batista, who died over 40 years ago have to do with Chavez and Venezuela?

You say Jean Francois revel is a right-wing philosopher, huh? Here's a recap:

"Author of several international best sellers over the last 30 years, Jean-François Revel is perhaps best known for Without Marx or Jesus, How Democracies Perish, and The Totalitarian Temptation. He lives in Paris."

Jan-Francois Revel was born in 1924 in Marseilles. He studied philosophy at University and taught it till 1963. Then, after the success of his first book Pourquoi des philosophes, he decided to concentrate on writting books and articles in newspapers.
At the end of the 70's, he became the editor for many years of the influential political weekly L'Express.
He is a member of the Academie Francaise since June 1998.
His books, including the best-seller Without Marx or Jesus and How Democracies Perish, Antiamericanism, have gained worldwide recognition."

And just for you, in French:

http://www.academie-francaise.fr/immortels/base/academiciens/fiche.asp?param=692

[/QUOTE]
OK. Visibly, debate is not the point here.
I don't think I will continue this. You provide links (disturbing ones, I agree), I provide others (also disturbing, I hope :lol: )

I will read and analyse the links you provided, and will get back on my friends to give me more info on these.

If something comes out that is blatantly false (knowing you, I don't expect it), I will come back on this thread. Otherwise, I don't feel like continuing a lenghty war of links, that won't help advancing the debate.

You certainly gave me links I never heard about before. Maybe they'll change my position, maybe not.

What I definitely think is that Chavez is not a dictator, and that the political solution he sets up in latin america is a good one for the people. Maybe I'm wrong. If so, I will recognize it on this forum. I definitely hope he's the 21st century socialist he claims to be. But so, socialists can be everything else and still want to be called socialists.



CU
Y

 

[MiamiFlorida]

OK. Visibly, debate is not the point here.
I don't think I will continue this. You provide links (disturbing ones, I agree), I provide others (also disturbing, I hope :lol: )

I will read and analyse the links you provided, and will get back on my friends to give me more info on these.

If something comes out that is blatantly false (knowing you, I don't expect it), I will come back on this thread. Otherwise, I don't feel like continuing a lenghty war of links, that won't help advancing the debate.

You certainly gave me links I never heard about before. Maybe they'll change my position, maybe not.

What I definitely think is that Chavez is not a dictator, and that the political solution he sets up in latin america is a good one for the people. Maybe I'm wrong. If so, I will recognize it on this forum. I definitely hope he's the 21st century socialist he claims to be. But so, socialists can be everything else and still want to be called socialists.



CU
Y[/QUOTE]

You have to define what you call "socialist".

I prefer the "political solution" that democratic Chile (the most prosperous nation in Latin America) uses. Freedom of the press, speech and peaceful assembly, individual bill of rights, respect for private property and all the social programs that promote equality....and all in a few short years since Pinochet resigned.

Dictator Augusto Pinochet resigned as Commander of the Chilean Army in 1998. The same year Chávez was elected. In spite of governing a country far richer than Chile....and sitting atop one of the world's largest oil reservoir...what has Chávez done to "de-bannanize" his country? Chile, in turn, has become a developed nation.

 

[epr64]

OK. Visibly, debate is not the point here.
I don't think I will continue this. You provide links (disturbing ones, I agree), I provide others (also disturbing, I hope :lol: )

I will read and analyse the links you provided, and will get back on my friends to give me more info on these.

If something comes out that is blatantly false (knowing you, I don't expect it), I will come back on this thread. Otherwise, I don't feel like continuing a lenghty war of links, that won't help advancing the debate.

You certainly gave me links I never heard about before. Maybe they'll change my position, maybe not.

What I definitely think is that Chavez is not a dictator, and that the political solution he sets up in latin america is a good one for the people. Maybe I'm wrong. If so, I will recognize it on this forum. I definitely hope he's the 21st century socialist he claims to be. But so, socialists can be everything else and still want to be called socialists.



CU
Y

You have to define what you call "socialist".

I prefer the "political solution" that democratic Chile (the most prosperous nation in Latin America) uses. Freedom of the press, speech and peaceful assembly, individual bill of rights, respect for private property and all the social programs that promote equality....and all in a few short years since Pinochet resigned.

Dictator Augusto Pinochet resigned as Commander of the Chilean Army in 1998. The same year Chávez was elected. In spite of governing a country far richer than Chile....and sitting atop one of the world's largest oil reservoir...what has Chávez done to "de-bannanize" his country? Chile, in turn, has become a developed nation.

Maybe it did. But there are far more deads in Chile than in Venezuela. Not that Chavez or Uribe have responsibility in it.. They just are head of state.

As far as I can see now (and I WILL investigate your links), those are both democracies. Chile did submit to the western world view, Venezuela didn't. Who's gonna get the best out of it? I don't know.

I think socialism is a better way of doing things (free med care, etc.. seem interesting to me). Maybe it isn't (I think no political system is better than any other, they're all corrput), but maybe some are a bit better than others.

Not very effective. We'll discuss that next week-end, when I have a bit less "rosé" in the system.

Cu untill then.

Y

 

[MiamiFlorida]

Maybe it did. But there are far more deads in Chile than in Venezuela. Not that Chavez or Uribe have responsibility in it.. They just are head of state.

As far as I can see now (and I WILL investigate your links), those are both democracies. Chile did submit to the western world view, Venezuela didn't. Who's gonna get the best out of it? I don't know.

I think socialism is a better way of doing things (free med care, etc.. seem interesting to me). Maybe it isn't (I think no political system is better than any other, they're all corrput), but maybe some are a bit better than others.

Not very effective. We'll discuss that next week-end, when I have a bit less "rosé" in the system.

Cu untill then.

Y

Tell me: How many dead in Chile since Pinochet resigned in 98?

Uribe is the president of Colombia, not Chile.

 

[epr64]

Tell me: How many dead in Chile since Pinochet resigned in 98?

Uribe is the president of Colombia, not Chile.

You see? That's what I meant with the "rosé in the system" :3oops:

CU
Y