I know it may be asking too much for idiot ideologues, pundits, and politicians to be honest enough to admit that it was Colombia that crossed the border of a sovereign nation, not Venezuela, but things are getting ridiculous! Likewise, we know Obama and Clinton to be intelligent enough to read and understand the verifiable truth about Colombia, Venezuela and Ecuador, but getting them to be honest enough to actually read it and then admit THE TRUTH may be too tall an order.
Here's the thing that sucks. Even when handed the evidence on a silver platter (as I've done here) ideologues won't read it (there are actual studies on this kind of blind dogmatism). Secondly, once they read incontrovertible fact, they'll deny it. Like petulant children they'll stomp their feet and say it just can't be true, because rather than grow up and admit the flaws in their thinking, they carry on with infantile behavior. Perhaps that is the reason they often choose not to read the facts...it forces them to admit that they are wrong. Oh the shame...the shame of admitting we are wrong or that we don't have a clue what we are talking about! Surely not "wrong"...that's worse than death!
But I've decided to give the benefit of the doubt to this hapless bunch in case they can be honest enough to read the evidential record (all of the highlighted links in this post are actual evidence, documents and articles, not homepages of websites) :
1) Colombian paramilitaries are responsible for 70% of all human rights violations in Colombia, not the FARC. These incontrovertible facts can be found in the following links Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, Global Exchange, Witness for Peace, et. al.
2) The paramilitaries (AUC) are an armband switch-a-roo away from being Colombian military and police. Thereby making the actual terrorist organization the Colombian government and their criminal leader: Alvaro Uribe.
3) The U.S. is therefore a major sponsor of terror! To the tune of $5 billion since 1999 through Plan Colombia to fight the FARC and ELN, not the AUC paramilitaries.
4) Just in case $5 billion is not enough, a U.S. corporation has been linked to the paramilitaries to fund their repression of organized labor and carry out assassinations, torture and disappearances. (Just in case you try to say the paramilitaries have demobilized...we've got that one covered with, gasp--EVIDENCE! and more EVIDENCE!)
5) Oh yeah, what about that sorted business Uribe's gotten himself all caught up in called "Para-politica," which hasn't even led to a pause in U.S. funding.
6) Chavez has won democratic elections consistently since 1998. Then when one of his policies was defeated, he graciously accepted defeat. Despite what ever fantasies ideologues may have, Venezuela under Chavez is a democracy. (Just in case someone tells me to move there, let me interrupt you and say that I'm staying here because I want to bring democracy to the U.S.!)
7) The U.S. has already tried to overthrow Chavez once (2002) and failed. We funded and gave tactical support to the coup through the National Endowment for Democracy and USAID. Yo fool ideologues! You don't have to do your homework today since I did the research for you. Here are some declassified documents...just in case you actually decide to be honest and begin doing actual research and look at actual evidence, here you go: EVIDENCE
The ridiculous obsession of some people who love to demonize Chavez despite contravening evidence makes them sound like fools!
The credibility, like the fantasies of so many ideologues, continues to crumble away since they continually fail to provide any kind of factual evidence to back their ridiculous claims. Even the U.S.'s own documentary record condemns them. One only need go to the National Security Archive and read through the declassified documents there!
When those of us seeking the truth are forced to hold our noses as we read and listen to the undocumented claims of ideological quacks and jingoistic pundits all day long, we are often foolish enough to wait for evidence from them. Then we come to our senses and realize who's shilling the shit! However, far more shameful than holding out hope for some honesty, are the ideological hacks and lazy asses that repeat these false claims and try to pass off opinion as fact whenever it suits their narratives. If they were my students I would have to fail them for not providing evidence to back their claims.
Fortunately, I don't feel as though I've wasted my time, nor my breath on ideologues who--by their very definition--will likely not change even when struck by lightning! Nope! My students will read and witness for themselves the infantile world they have the misfortune of inheriting.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
19 comments:
I would add that Colombia has no Chavez, because members of legal parties on the left, are killed off by death squads.
If Chavez invades Columbia the USA should invade Venezuela.
Here we have more lies by Renegade Eye. FARC is a Narco terrorist outfit
that is communist. I suppose he wants to be Superfly Renegade Eye Drug dealer of the people. How does one rail about the inner citties while supporting drug dealers.
In the fantasy world of Ren the absence of a Chavez type figure is proof of a plot. Columbia has been in a civil war. This is contrasted with Che Sponge Bob who executed civilians with a sexual predator henchman Herman Marks pulling the trigger.
I want to encourage Commies to form
a Che Sponge Bob division and fight for Hugo's right to meglomania and deal drugs. Are you webolutionaries ready to die for your ignorance. Please take Larry Gambone with you
so you commies can pull another Old Yeller bit on the anarchists.
The ignorance of the facts about Venezuela continues. The refugees in my office who lived there must
have missed the Sponge Che Bob/ Up in Smoked Troutsky Theresienstadt tour. Are these tours subsidized by
a hostile foreign government. Have you reported this to the IRS and registered as foreign agents.
How about these "Peace " slogans
NO WAR FOR MEGLOMANIA
COMMIES DEAL DRUGS AND SUPPORT THUGS.
Lets see the webolutionary Sponge Che Bob calls me a cartoon. This is
very creative for a commie I have been lampooning as a human cartoon.
Your lack of creatvity and low IQ are basic skills required by commies.
Ren is the embodiment of evil. He merely changes his tune depending what blog he is on and tries to put
a smiley face on human misery.
COMMUNISM=GENOCIDE
Cartoon-boy,
How'd the reading go? Oh yeah, you didn't bother.
What do think of this simple little FACT? Seventy percent of all human rights violations in Colombia are committed by the right-wing, narco-trafficking, paramilitary death squads; the police; and the Colombian military (all one-in-the-same)?
I can document that members of legal electoral parties, were killed off by death squads in Colombia. Unlike in Venezuela, where the opposition is politically active, vocal and living.
I don't support FARC. If I did I would say so.
Che: Notice Beakerkin didn't mention death squads? Beakerkin is mostly characterized underneath the rhetoric, as a political coward. He never talks about his beliefs.
1) Colombian paramilitaries are responsible for 70% of all human rights violations in Colombia, not the FARC. These incontrovertible facts can be found on the Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, Global Exchange, Witness for Peace, et. al.
It's very interesting that you don't believe the media when they support the USA, but you immediately believe them when they say something you like.
There are no "incontrovertible facts", Che Bob. Everybody lies. But even assuming that this is true, it doesn't prove anything, one way or the other, about Chavez. Colombian paramilitaries could be responsible for 99.999 % of all atrocities and Chavez could be still be an asshole.
2) The paramilitaries (AUC) are an armband switch-a-roo away from being Colombian military and police. Thereby making the actual terrorist organization the Colombian government and their criminal leader: Alvaro Uribe.
Pure rhetoric, no facts.
, 3) The U.S. is therefore a major sponsor of terror! To the tune of $5 billion since 1999 through Plan Colombia to fight the FARC and ELN, not the AUC paramilitaries.
Again, it has nothing to do with Chavez.
4) Just in case $5 billion is not enough, a U.S. corporation has been linked to the paramilitaries to fund their repression of organized labor and carry out assassinations, torture and disappearances. (Just in case you try to say the paramilitaries have demobilized...we've got that one covered with, gasp--EVIDENCE! and more EVIDENCE!)
I never said that paramilitaries have demobilized. It's irrelevant to Chavez anyway.
, 5) Oh yeah, what about that sorted business Uribe's gotten himself all caught up in call "Para-politica," which hasn't even led to a pause in U.S. funding.
and it relates to Chavez how ????
6) Chavez has won democratic elections consistently since 1998. Then when one of his policies was defeated, he graciously accepted defeat. Despite what ever fantasies ideologues may have, Venezuela under Chavez is a democracy. (Just in case someone tells me to move there, let me interrupt you and say that I'm staying here because I want to bring democracy to the U.S.!)
Uribe has won "democratic" elections as well. It's interesting how selective your support for "democracy" is...
7) The U.S. has already tried to overthrow Chavez once (2002) and failed. We funded and gave tactical support to the coup through the National Endowment for Democracy and USAID. Yo fool ideologues! You don't have to do your homework today since I did the research for you. Here are some declassified documents...just in case you actually decide to be honest and begin doing actual research and look at actual evidence, here you go: EVIDENCE
You are so determined to prove that "U.S. has already tried to overthrow Chavez", that you don't even stop and think whether they SHOULD overthrow him or not. That is the real question.
ridiculous obsession of some people who love to demonize Chavez
There is only one reason I am "obsessed" with "demonizing" Chavez: because they are people who are wrong to support him (like yourself).
I want to be clear here: if you were saying that you support Chavez becauuse you want Venezuela and other countries to live under a totalitarian regime, I would disagree with you, but I would respect your opinion. And I certainly wouldn't try to change your mind.
But I think that you support Chavez because you believe that he will improve the lives of the Venezuelan people. I am absolutely convinced that he won't. And that's why I am "demonizing" him. Because he is a fraud. And because people believe in his fraud.
Sonia,
What it has to do with Chavez is that you chose to attack him and blame the current situation on him. You chose the battle ground, not me.
Just answer the evidence. And yes, there are "incontrovertible facts," you simply choose to ignore them, which was the point of my response.
The rhetoric is all yours. You again wasted everyone's time by trying to evade the issues presented and talk around in circles. What do you have to say about the evidence presented?
By the way, when and where do I supposedly ignore the media when it doesn't behoove my narrative? Look at who is referenced. I referenced human rights organizations, not the media, so sorry you're leading the dog off the scent again. Just try to answer to the evidence.
Yes, Uribe has won "democratic" elections, but there is a clear difference: international election observers documented massive problems in the Colombian elections...not the Venezuelan ones. I am far from picking and choosing. Show me a single example of where I've misused evidence to prove my point and I'll own up to it.
Oops! I've fallen into one of your ridiculous traps, I've gone off the trail and we're looking at me again. I'd prefer you first answer to the evidence that I diligently dug up for the likes of you who are far too lazy to read evidence and instead prefer to avoid evidence.
After you've proven the evidence (consisting of declassified U.S. documents) faulty, you can begin to provide us with evidence that Chavez is a taking money from the FARC, or that he is a dictator, etc. And please don't insult us with editorial pieces. Find us actual documentary proof. But please, I beg of you, start by disproving the evidence I've provided you.
By the way, did you stop to listen to how ridiculous you sound when you say that Colombian paramilitaries could be responsible for 99.999 % of all atrocities and Chavez could be still be an asshole? WTF?
What do others think? Have Sonia and Beakerkin proved me right or what? They can't even look at the evidence when it's handed to them on a silver platter.
When they are ready for an adult exchange, we'll dialogue with them, because they don't get the benefit of the doubt that they aren't old enough to understand the games they are playing. At this point, I believe it's pointless to engage them until they are honest enough look at evidence.
Hasta luego Sonia y Beakerkin.
I couldn't resist. The following photo essay is for people who actually care what the people of Colombia think, not what they'd like for them to think because it suits their narrative.
I referenced human rights organizations, not the media, so sorry you're leading the dog off the scent again.
I don't think you answered Sonia effectively. You need to explain why the human rights organizations are to be trusted, and why the international media is not.
This may be difficult to do. My current stance remains a cool skepticism towards Chavez with a firm disagreement that the U.S. involve itself in this business in any way. Over time, hopefully the truth will come out.
Wiser,
I don't think you answered Sonia effectively. You need to explain why the human rights organizations are to be trusted, and why the international media is not.
You seriously can't understand why many human rights organizations are trustworthy? Do you know what they do? Do you understand the actual on-the-ground research, eye-witness testimonies, and forensic work that they do?
And, by the way, I never said the "international" media cannot be trusted. I have, however, said that the corporate media cannot be trusted, but not some generic "international" media.
Back to the point Wiser. Have you ever tried to familiarize yourself with human rights groups? Have you looked through their work? Have you spent time going through their material? Did you look through the documents I linked to my post? If not, why not? Too busy? Maybe it's time to stop avoiding it and look at it. I even did the work for you all! I'm confident that if you actually read through the links I'd provided you'd not be asking me who or what can be trusted. Just look at it...please!
Another thing about most human rights groups, is that their reputations are staked on providing empirical proof from which they derive their analysis. This is the work that a lot of media used to do, and that which few media outlets can be trusted to do anymore. On the other hand, the vast majority of the mainstream media show up at the U.S. State Department or the U.S. Department of Defense to take statements, which cannot and should not be trusted to be objective.
Rather than wait for "the truth to come out" over time, like you suggest we do, we can respond to the vast evidence that exists and take action. Unless you think it is better to not investigate crime and let criminals roam freely until the truth comes out. And, if we follow your prescription, we'll do this all because we don't know who to trust. Please have the common sense to recognize the human cost of waiting for the truth to neatly unfold simply because we can't be troubled to look at the mountains of evidence that incriminates politicians, leaders, CEOs and the pundits that shill for them.
Knowing what and who to trust shouldn't be that hard of a thing to figure out. But the first thing it will require is that ideologues let go of their positions in order to objectively analyze the evidential record. I'm sorry to say this, but many of the positions you take on all variety of issues will no longer hold up to the scrutiny of evidence. Unless, of course, you also choose to ignore what is undeniably true.
Not liking what a human rights group has to say because it contradicts our neat and tidy little ideology is criminal. Just so you don't go thinking I'm speaking out of both sides of my mouth, I'm glad to face challenges of where I've made claims and there exists sufficient evidence to contradict it.
Back to the topic at hand...what is your opinion of Chavez? What do you "know" about him? Or do you freely admit you know only what you've heard from reading conservative opinion pieces? For instance, what evidence have you ever seen that corroborates even the most tentative of your claims about Hugo Chavez? What specifically are you "skeptical" of concerning Chavez? Is it his rhetoric? Bombast? Or is it actual actions he's taken for which you've seen (not "heard") evidence?
In the end, the real work we are all faced with requires just that: real work. Not cleverly stated rhetoric.
Thank you Wiser for at least having the honesty to ask questions and the engage in dialogue!!!
Sponge Che Bob
I see people from Columbia every dayand not one of them has ever made any of those claims. I also see plenty of Venezuelans and they say plenty about the Maximum dolt number two Hugo Chavez.
I do not believe those numbers. However, I do believe that 100,000,000 dead for your demented warped pathological idiocy is enough.
Are you ready to die for Hugo? Let the commies form a new international brigade and get it over with. Invite some anarchists so that you can predictably kill them later.
How many of you webolutionaries are
ready to renounce your citizenship?
Funny people will risk life and limb to get away from the evils you
endorse but refuse to live under.
You clowns are nothing more than Couch Potato Commies. Take your revolution to the street and you will be lucky if you get tarred and feathered.
I gotta know about this office Beak where you see only pro Uribe Colombians and anti-Chavez Venezuelans. After Chavez invades Colombia he may move into Guyana! I'm thinking pre-emptive nuclear attack!
CheBob,thanks for the research, it will be a convenient resource when I get in my next "Latin America" debate.
Troutsky: The gusano Venezuelans and Colombians Beakerkin sees, are the same ward in the hospital, where people get treated for incoherent babbling.
Troutsky
Go and ask your local immigration officer. The Columbian and Venezuela
communities are large in NYC.
Come here and visit Union City and the locals will give you the tar and feathering you deserve.
The question is why Commies refuse to live under the hells they create for others.
Neither Venezuela or Colombia are communist countries.
At my blog I posted an article, that debunks Beakerkin's conspiracy theory, about Chavez funding FARC.
I met anti-Chavez Venezuelans in Minneapolis. They came here because as much as they dislike Chavez, the opposition is an embarrasement. The main student spokesperson in the opposition Stalin Gonzalez is a Maoist, who believes the opposition is a socialist movement. The Shining Path is his comrades.
Did you look through the documents I linked to my post?
I've been called out. I'll get to them. I promise.
Back to the topic at hand...what is your opinion of Chavez? What do you "know" about him?
I know the neocons hate him--who cares--and that folks like you and Troutsky are fond of him. Now, I don't know enough about him to villianize him, but the little I know about politics in South America suggests that this fellow is going to turn despot sooner or later.
This is just my pessimism seeping out. I hold no ill will toward Chavez, and loathe the actions our government may take in regards to him.
folks, check out this site for one-stop venezuela news links (pro and anti-chavez)
http://venezuelatoday.net
As with Troutsky's post, I think I have missed the bulk of the discussion. Regardless, this was a phenomenal post (your evidence is fantastic).
A wise man once told me ... never try to rationalize with a fool.
Ché bob, good luck with your quest of rationalization with the narrow-minded.
Great post, btw.
Post a Comment