Chavez praises Carlos the Jackal

[Zorro]

Source: AP

Hugo Chavez is defending alleged terrorist mastermind Carlos the Jackal, saying the Venezuelan imprisoned in France was a "revolutionary fighter" rather than a terrorist.

The Venezuelan president praised Carlos -- whose real name is Ilich Sanchez Ramirez -- during a speech Friday night saying: "I defend him. It doesn't matter to me what they say tomorrow in Europe."

Ramirez gained international notoriety during the 1970s and 80s as the alleged mastermind of deadly bombings, killings and hostage dramas. He is serving a life sentence in France for the 1975 murders of two French secret agents and an alleged informant.

"They accuse him of being a terrorist, but Carlos really was a revolutionary fighter," Chavez said during a televised speech to socialist politicians from various countries, who applauded.

Read more: http://www.boston.com/news/world/latinamerica/articles/2009/11/21/chavez_praises_carlos_the_jackal/

[vadawg]

1. dude meet mr shark n/t

[JDPriestly]

2. Chavez is really sinking low and stinking up the place on this one. Ugh.

[Codeine]

3. It won't matter to the DU Chavistas.

They'll be along shortly with the usual apologetic nonsense.

[UTUSN]

12. +1 n/t

[BREMPRO]

30. agree- they are too blinded by chavez worship to see what he's become.

[BREMPRO]

31. OMG he's also praising Mugabe, Ahmadinejad and IDI AMIN!! He's lost it.

"In his speech, Chavez also sought to defend other leaders he said are wrongly labeled "bad guys" internationally, including Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe and Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Chavez called both of them brothers and said he now wonders whether Ugandan dictator Idi Amin was truly as brutal as he was reputed to be."

[GCP]

61. Oh, I think Idi Amin was truly as brutal as he was reputed to be

Those murdered were mostly anonymous people: farmers, students, clerks and shopkeepers who were shot or forced to bludgeon one another to death by members of death squads, including the chillingly named Public Safety Unit and the State Research Bureau. Along with the military police, these forces numbering 18,000 men were recruited largely from Mr. Amin's home region. They often chose their victims because they wanted their money, houses or women, or because the tribal groups the victims belonged to were marked for humiliation.

But there were also many hundreds of prominent men and women among the dead. Their killings were public affairs carried out in ways that were meant to attract attention, terrorize the living and convey the message that it was Mr. Amin who wanted them killed. They included cabinet ministers, Supreme Court judges, diplomats, university rectors, educators, prominent Catholic and Anglican churchmen, hospital directors, surgeons, bankers, tribal leaders and business executives.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/17/world/idi-amin-murderous-and-erratic-ruler-of-uganda-in-the-70-s-dies-in-exile.html

[taurus145]

4. That's putting it mildly n/t

[HughMoran]

97. to say the least

he's doing whatever he can to get attention at this point.

[cali]

5. what is he trying to accomplish with this nonsense?

it's absurd.

[SkyDaddy7]

6. Chavez defines "ABSURD"!

[AlphaCentauri]

15. Chavez is making a parody of US heroes and freedom fighters

Posada Carriles and Orlando Bosch

Orlando Bosch’s terrorist curriculum vitae

Few terrorists in history have achieved as high a level of criminal activity as Orlando Bosch.

In 1968, his fame was so great that, while under arrest for a bazooka attack on a Polish freighter, the city of Miami proclaimed Orlando Bosch Day, in support of that "exemplary" anti-Castro fighter. The pace of the attacks he carried out consisted of a campaign of terror aimed at scaring the Miami community, and raising money for "the cause" – including, of course, the terrorist leader’s bank account.

http://www.independence.net/orlandobosch/

[StClone]

17. Luis Posada Carriles

Thanks for bringing the Chess game back. The anti-Chavez dolts playing connect the dots here take Chavez out of the milieu of South American/U.S. history and twist anything Chavez does as proof of el diablo.

The U.S. protects Luis Posada Carriles and the goofs here miss Chavez's parody/irony of such. The goofs then go about whacking at the fictional Chavez effigy they have built. It would not surprise me that some of these are rich ex-Venezuelans who lost their ill-got gains and can only harp via DU posts.

About Luis Posada Carriles:

http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/154-general/26762.html

[EFerrari]

28. I myself would be terribly embarrassed if my president praised terrorists

mass murderers or even leaders of brutal governments that kill their own people and promote terror around the world. That could never happen here.



REMARKS BY PRESIDENT OBAMA
AND PRESIDENT URIBE OF COLOMBIA
IN JOINT PRESS AVAILABILITY



Oval Office
3:43 P.M. EDT

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, I am very pleased to have President Uribe here today with his delegation from Colombia. The relationship between the United States and Colombia has been extremely strong. We've had great cooperation on a whole range of issues, and President Uribe's administration I think has, under very difficult circumstances, performed admirably on a whole range of fronts -- on security, on reducing the influence of the drug cartels, in improving the economic situation for his people, and stabilizing the country. He has performed with diligence and courage. And so we are grateful for his friendship and I'm glad that he was able to come and visit us here today.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-President-Obama-and-President-Uribe-of-Colombia-in-Joint-Press-Availability/



March in Medellin, 6 march 20068, Following is an excerpt of call put out by convening organization, "National Movement of Victims of State Crimes".

"Some four million people in Colombia have been displaced, the majority of them by paramilitary groups. These groups, acting alone or in conjunction with members of the armed forces, have disappeared at least 15,000 compatriots and have buried them in more than 3,000 mass graves; they have murdered more than 1,700 indigenous people, 2,550 trade unionists, and close to 5,000 members of the Patriotic Union. They routinely torture their victims before killing them. Between 1982 and 2005 the paramilitary groups perpetrated more than 3,500 massacres and appropriated more than six million hectares of land. Since 2002, after their supposed 'demobilization', they have killed 600 people each year and came to control 35 percent of the parliament. The national army has carried out more than 950 executions since 2002. In January 2008 alone, the paramilitary groups committed two massacres, disappeared nine people, and were identified in eight homicides, while the army has committed 16 extra-judicial executions....

http://www.flickr.com/photos/wirobinson/2317910039/

* * *

"I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. I think they felt like with all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s and government had grown and grown but there wasn't much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating. I think people, he just tapped into what people were already feeling, which was we want clarity we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing." Candidate Obama to the Reno Gazzette

Optimism


Dynamism


Entrepreneurship


And here's some clarity


* * *

OBAMA: Thank you, everybody. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, everybody. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Well, thanks -- thank you for the extraordinary welcome. And thanks for those of you who prepared from the CIA gift shop the t- shirts. (LAUGHTER)

The caps. The water bottles.

(LAUGHTER)

Michelle and the girls will appreciate that very much.

(LAUGHTER)

It is a great honor to be here with the men and women of the CIA. I've been eager to come out here to Langley for some time so I can deliver a simple message to you in person, on behalf of the American people: Thank you. Thank you for all the work that you do to protect the American people and the freedom that we all cherish.

The CIA is fundamental to America's national security, and I want you to know that that's why I nominated such an outstanding public servant and close friend, Leon Panetta, to lead -- to lead the agency. He is one of our nation's finest public servants, he has my complete confidence and he is a strong voice in my national security team, as well as a strong advocate for the men and women of the CIA.

I also benefit from the counsel of several agency veterans, chief among them Steve Kappes, who's stayed on to serve as Leon's deputy, and he's done outstanding work.

(LAUGHTER)

I have to add, just as an aside, by the way, I just met with a smaller group of about 50 so we could have a dialogue, and all of you look really young.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/04/20/obama_speech_to_the_cia_96093.html

Maher Arar: JFK to Syria
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ufVGyHb0Gc

The Destroyed CIA Torture Tapes & Psychologists

Is the CIA covering up the role of psychologists in torture at secret CIA prisons? Last week CIA Director Michael Hayden defended the Agency’s decision to destroy two videotapes of interrogations saying they posed a “serious security risk.” He said that if they were to become public they would have exposed C.I.A. officials and their families to "retaliation from Al Qaeda and its sympathizers.”

http://www.democracynow.org/blog/2007/12/10/the_destroyed_cia_torture_tapes_psychologists

"Maj Gen Taguba, who retired in January 2007, said he supported the President's decision, adding: "These pictures show torture, abuse, rape and every indecency."

http://www.truthout.org/052809A


Documents confirm CIA knew Jesuit priests to be executed
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7047681

* * *

But we'd never fall for such an obvious hit job on the president here at DU.

[cali]

40. I am embarassed by his comments about Uribe

And I would never do what you're doing to try and sugar coat them. furthermore he was absolutely right that Reagan changed the trajectory of the country more than Clinton and there's nothing in that statement that constitutes praise. your post is just silly and sad and in no way improves what Chavez said.

really pathetic attempt.


Now go cheer on Mugabe.

[EFerrari]

42. Your blinkers are showing, cali.

Reagan killed more people than Amin. He got over a hundred thousand people dead in El Salvador and here alone. Do you think he's known for his "singularity" all over the world? Bet you do.

I'm not sugar coating anything. I'm pointing out how stupid this exercise is.

But you sure do seem to be enjoying it which is completely unsurprising and even somewhat amusing especially when you chortle about how other people think here. Have at it. :hi:

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

47. Well, the number of people Amin killed varies wildly (100,000 - 500,000) however...

what I don't understand is this idea of yours that praising someone like Amin is somehow acceptable behavior based on what occured under the Reagan Administration. Would you mind explaining it?

[EFerrari]

74. Maybe because that isn't my idea?

Is this a cognitive problem you have, putting words constantly in other people's mouths?

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

75. Then what is your purpose in directing the discussion away from Amin's crimes and onto Reagan's?

Did you have one or did you just feel like throwing a post up?

[EFerrari]

84. I didn't direct the discussion away from Amin and onto Reagan.

I invited readers of this OP to think about how easy it is to write a hit piece like this one. How it depends solely on button pushing for its effect.

The crew that I show Obama has praised are easily as, if not more corrupt, murderous and terroristic as the group used to tar Chavez.

And that's it for me on this sad little thread.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

87. Yes, you did, though consider this.

You sincerely don't see a difference in praising the President of a nation vs. praising one of the most infamous terrorists in modern history? Honestly? I realize you're among the most die-hard, Chavez-can-do-no-wrong posters on these boards, but this is a stretch even for you.

With that sad, yep, run along.

[EFerrari]

90. Do you never read anything not generated by Faux News?

You clearly didn't read my post. That "infamous terrorist" can't hold a candle to Uribe, CIA or Reagan.

:)

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

91. Which somehow makes praising him a wise, just, intelligent move?

I mean, seriously...

Also, I'm not sure I've ever cited FOX News as a source in any thread on this board, so where do you get that innane accusation from?

[EFerrari]

92. Notice how you again put words in my mouth?

That's a really bad habit you have there.

And I'm thinking it's not a mistake you can make tens of times without noticing.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

93. When in doubt, play the victim.

It's no secret that when a criticism is raised about Chavez on these boards, you're quickly there attempting to turn the focus away from Chavez and on to other figures - in this case Reagan, but usually Uribe or the paramilitaries. So let me put it this way...***if you believe Chavez's praising of Carlos the Jackal or his downplaying the crimes of Idi Amin is unwise, unjust, or stupid, why can't you bring yourself to simply say so?***

It would clear up a lot of the confusion on these boards and you'd come off as a far more reasonable poster.

[cali]

36. twist? you have to be truly a blind adulator to defend Chavez on this one

or a dolt of the first water.

Believe it or not, genius, one can condemn both Carriles and Sanchez. And holding up Mugabe as an example of good leadership is as obscene as holding up george bush as a an example of good leadership.

you folks just look pathetic as shit on this one, honey.

[malaise]

44. Good post

:hi:

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

46. Really? Because, if you read the article a bit further, it seems like more than that.

"Chavez has previously called Ramirez a friend, and a controversy erupted in 1999 after the leftist leader confirmed he had written a letter to him in prison, in response to a note from Ramirez."

[ChangoLoa]

50. # 41

[Truth2Tell]

73. Goofs. Nailed it. nt

[cali]

26. bwahahahahahahahahahahaha.

that's a riot. you actually think that makes Chavez' utterances just dandy?

gad, sometimes I despair at what passes for thinking around here.

[AlphaCentauri]

58. We suppose not to think just follow the waves but lets sanctify hypocrisy

Why is it allowed a terrorist walk free in florida with the support of members of congress?

Are there any difference between a terrorist working for the CIA and those leftist terrorist or religious terrorist?

I could go on and on with questions about it, but that could spark a thinking moment and we shouldn't do that, we better align with who ever gives money to our party.

[Igel]

45. Were this the first time Chavez said this, perhaps the parody line would work.

He's done it a number of times, and most of the time the implicature holds--Chavez was completely serious, defending a compatriot and his cause against those that Chavez really despises--and if people die, well, that's revolution. Nobody's life is too important to be sacrificed for the goal. Of course, it's only suitable for certain times and places, and only certain lives, but why focus on trivia and negatives?

There's a probable tacit threat in that, of course. Several, in fact. But taking each example as a hapax misses the generalization--each token can be explained, but if you do it you wind up contorting Chavez differently so much each time that he's basically a parody.

[boppers]

7. More press for Chavez.

He's like the Britney Spears of world leaders, saying, or doing, anything to get press. It's pathetic.

Only a matter of time before somebody screams: "Leave Hugo Alone!!"

[David__77]

8. Well, Chavez is right.

But that doesn't mean that his tactics were correct.

[cali]

9. right about what?

And further in the argument he makes an attempt to rehabilitate Amin. This is just ridiculous rhetoric and it appears to be all about attention grabbing.

[DrCory]

10. Tactics Define The Man

Bombing the Maison de France and the TVG weren't revolutionary acts.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

48. Really? Cause Carlos generally seemed more interested in fame

than in any particular revolution.

[Gman]

11. "But if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao

you ain't gonna make it with anyone anyhow."

[Warren Stupidity]

34. Funny how Mao's China is now the center of the world.

I guess all that Mao Picture Carrying resulted in everything being made in China. Odd. The song perhaps needs a re-write:

"If you weren't carrying pictures of Chairman Mao
You aren't going to be making anything anyhow."

[anigbrowl]

43. No, it isn't. Deng Xiaoping's China is center of the world.

Mao was a good revolutionary but a terrible governor. If China had stuck with Maoist policies it would just be a giant version of North Korea today.

[Warren Stupidity]

83. Good jokes are always spoiled by literalist deconstruction.

However the point remains that whomever's communist state China is, it is now the center of the world. Further, China, and the general trend toward authoritarian capitalism (which now has its best example ironically in 'communist' China,) has rendered null and void the neoliberal mantra that capitalism and freedom are the linked together. They aren't, any more than socialism is linked with authoritarianism. What the start of the 21st century has shown is that the ancient struggle between the people and the elites, between democracy and oligarchy continues, and that for now the planetary elites are firmly in control.

[Pavulon]

13. I wonder how much money guys like carlos would charge

to stamp out a guy like hugo. I guess the whole revolutionary thing only works when you are on the giving end.

Those with chaffed knees from bowing to the hugo god are going to be getting a swift kick real soon

[Imajika]

14. He also defends Robert Mugabe..

..of all people.

No serious person can defend Robert Mugabe. Oh yeah, he defends Ahmadinejad too. Chavez says these are his "brothers".

Somehow though, Chavez has a legion of cheerleaders here who will support him pretty much no matter what idiotic things he says or does.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

49. Sad, isn't it?

[Renew Deal]

16. One mans terrorist is another mans "freedom fighter."

And Chavez shows his ugly side again.

[cali]

18. Where are those here who usually leap on any thread critical of Chavez?

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

51. You mean Lynn and Peace Patriot?

It seems even EFarrari isn't exerting much effort to defend Chavez on this one.

[itsrobert]

19. Zorro is actually the ex-King of Venezuela

using his alter ego to post on DU to take Chavez down so he can return to throne.

Look it up.

[Zorro]

25. Hail to the King, baby

[ronnie624]

20. It's just his opinion as reported by unfriendly media, not actions.

Proof of behavior is in what one does, and so far, Hugo Chavez's actions have been mostly positive, as an objective assessment of Venezuelan social indicators would show. And he is still supported by a majority of the Venezuelan electorate. These facts are much more important in the forming of an opinion about the politics of Venezuela. I've found that this sort of 'news' item about Chavez is likely to contain exaggerations, anyway.

[cali]

21. words count and praising Mugabe and the Jackal is an indication

of where his sympathies lie as well as further confirmation that the guy is real publicity hound. And either the quotes are accurate or they aren't, but judging from his past pronouncements, I see no reason to believe they're inaccurate.

[Odin2005]

22. Where are the Chavez-bots now?

[cali]

23. Why insult them by calling them "bots"?

[Odin2005]

24. Sorry, I'm a little grumpy this morning!

:banghead:

[Posteritatis]

29. Stripping their gears trying to figure out how best to praise Carlos. (nt)

[Warren Stupidity]

38. nah. the jackal was not a good person

you won't see a lot of us piping up here to praise him, nor do we actually defend every utterance from Chavez. On the other hand, the DU-rightwing anti-socialists just have a thing about the guy. They cannot find one thing right about anything that has happened in Venezuela since '98, nor one thing wrong with the rather dubious role we have played during that time. It seems that having Venezuela's resources used almost exclusively to make the filthy rich and global corporations richer was a good thing, and using those same resources instead to benefit the people of Venezuela, to build schools, hospitals, roads, housing, to increase literacy and provide universal healthcare, all that is irredeemably bad, because well, Chavez, and socialism you know.

[ChangoLoa]

39. If only it was true that he's built more "hospitals, roads, housing" than the ones before him

Unfortunately, that's false information. The same for the literacy programs which, according to the official stats, have done nothing more than keeping steady the previous growth rate for literacy*.

At this level, there are two positive achievements of this administration:
1. The reduction of monetary poverty after 2003 which is real and important
2. The 4,000 dispensaries (Barrio Adentro) that were built in the slum areas. Unfortunately, a month ago Chavez admitted that 2,000 of those dispensaries had been abandoned**.

Finally, I want to remind you that there are 3 socialist parties in Venezuela (PSUV, MAS and PODEMOS) and 2 of them are not with Chavez (they are part of the mixed salad called "opposition"). Don't think that being in disagreement with Chavez is a "right-wing thing" in Venezuela.

* From a poster
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=405x23357#23638

"So what's the big fuss about illiteracy in Venezuela... let's go check!
Adult literacy rate: 1981=84.7% ; 1990=89.8% ; 2001=93% ; 2007=95.2%
Youth .............: 1981=93.1% ; 1990=95.4% ; 2001=97.2% ; 2007= 98.4%
Retrieve the data in
http://stats.uis.unesco.org/unesco/TableViewer/document.aspx?ReportId=136&IF_Language=eng&BR_Topic=0

**
http://deportes.eluniversal.com/2009/09/20/pol_art_chavez-declaro-en-em_1574464.shtml
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=405x23212

[Taverner]

27. Revolutionary Fighter? Terrorist? I thought he was just a hitman...

A gun for hire...

[Liberation Angel]

53. me too, but read up on him here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlos_the_Jackal

It ain't simple or what the media or even many here at DU would have you think.

[Taverner]

62. Sounds like he was a hired gun who cut his teeth on the cold war...

[EFerrari]

67. He was up to his eyeballs in the Palestinian cause. So was his sister.

ETA: Actually, his sister did her "actions" in Germany, iirc.

[Hannah Bell]

94. wow, interesting. so his dad, the leninist lawyer, sent him to cuban training camp while

his mom sent him to the london school of economics.

& he was expelled from lumumba u. i wonder why?

more than meets the eye, yes indeed.

[NoPasaran]

98. I read somewhere he got the boot from Lumumba U for his notorious capitalist road trip

Rumored to have been the inspiration for the Beatles' "Back In The USSR"

[Prometheus Bound]

32. The last two paragraphs are funny.

On Friday, he protested remarks by Israeli President Shimon Peres, who predicted during a visit to Argentina that the people of Venezuela and Iran will make their leaders disappear before too long.

"Talking about Chavez, among other things he said he will soon disappear -- just like that, which has different connotations," Chavez said. "Imagine if one of us said something similar talking about him or them -- any of them, the 'good guys.'"

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

This week is our fourth quarter 2009 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Please take a moment to donate! Thank you!

[Warren Stupidity]

35. Hey now, are you on the payroll or do you just do this for free? nt.

[Dorian Gray]

37. Wow....

That man knows how to win fans.

[ChangoLoa]

41. This nonsense started 10 years ago

"He (Carlos) is known to have had a sporadic correspondence with Venezuelan president Hugo Chávez from his prison cell. President Chávez replied, with a letter in which he addresses Carlos as "distinguished compatriot".<11><12><13> On June 1, 2006, Chávez referred to him as his "good friend" during a meeting of OPEC countries held in Caracas.<14>"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlos_the_Jackal

It's one of the earlier foreign policy absurdities from the Chavez government. Everything started in 1999 with this public letter he wrote to the Jackal:

http://www.analitica.com/bitblioteca/hchavez/carta_chacal.asp

It's in spanish. I remember that I supported Chavez at this time. This letter was really confusing though. This murderous hitman is a distinguished compatriot?! WTF!

[Liberation Angel]

52. What is this really about? Anti-Chavez propaganda?

The fact is that the perception of "Carlos the Jackal" is really more media fiction than the actual life of this left wing militant and seeming mercenary.

I really am glad this was poste because I really knew very little about this guy who seemingly is demonized primarily for his militant pro=Palestinian activities (and yes that is ctually a war between those two peoples).

Terrorism is relative depending on whether you are the perpetrator or the responder to violence and is a weak word imho for anyone because ALL war is terror by definition.

So reading the wiki page on this guy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlos_the_Jackal

I find that he IS actually a killer who kills for causes he believes in: that is - he is a soldier who has killed and plundered in the sme way that almost all soldiers kill and plunder except more famously and in higher profile (taking OPEC ministers hostage MIGHT get you on a LOT of shit lists as will supporting the bombing of organizations/institutions (with collateral damage) which are seen as enemies o Palestinians.

This is not as clear cut as I thought it was (I actually thought he was one of OUR CIA terrorists and NOT a Venezuelan Communist (named after Lenin by his father, a communist) who joined the Paletinain cause as a militant leader).

It seems he has lined hs own pockets (but the media could be lying too) in mercenary ways but who knows hw much of the legend is even true.

He is a soldier and militant whose support o militant Palestinians has made him evil in the eyes of most of the western world. But really he is just like many in our CIA and the Mossad and other national intel and spy/murder units - militant opportunists with ideologies that many of us find abhorrent. Is he worse than some of our own paid mercenaries? Blackwater types? KBR rapists? Torturers?

Just askin'.

Why blame Chavez because he recognizes that in warfare there are people who kill and who are willing to die opposing Western Totalitarianism (even if it means embracing another ideological totalitarianism, i.e war and terror)

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

54. Quite frankly, Carlos was scatter-brained, as his record shows

and any argument that this can all be boiled down to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is a bit ridiculous, as it overlooks his attacks on OPEC, his attacks on Radio Free Europe, his attacks on Romanian dissidents, etc.

[Liberation Angel]

55. Yeah, but he is most closely associated with the Palestinian militant movement

not to say like many CIA and Mossad folks that he didn't do some wetwork on the side.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

56. While I'm apt to agree with that, is it fair to portray him as some freedom fighter?

After all, whose freedom was he fighting for when he signed up to attack Romanian dissidents or Radio Free Europe? Whose freedom was he fighting for when he attacked OPEC? At the end of the day, I think it's fair to say he liked the glamour, the blood, and the danger of being a "revolutionary", but his understanding of the world was superficial at best and he lacked any serious, long term commitment to the freedom of any people.

[Liberation Angel]

59. Well, he was named for Lenin by a communist father...

I never said he was a freedom fighter, but I can see why some on the left or from the Palestinian perspective would say that with some degree of credibility (it is all a matter of perspective) --it is a matter of opinion whether "freedom fighters" are terrorists or not (it usually depends on whether you are the target or not).

I can't say what he may or not have believed in or even IF he was involved in those incidents (I haven't looked at the evidence or the allegations at all)

But he MIGHT have been a gun for hire against those whose ideologies he felt were anti-left.

Hell, I can understand thinking OPEC is oppressive (it is) and harming it would be a blow for freedom (I wish Obama would use some nonviolent means to beat the hell out of OPEC or hold them hostage for freedom's cause)

It ain't as simple as many here try to make it

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

63. Some agreement.

That seems to be the case, his understanding of the world was/is fairly superficial and he broke it down into a simple "Left = good". The fact that East Germany squashed peoples' freedoms was never much of a concern for him. They were Left so they were automatically on the side of right, as far as he was concerned. Frankly, between this and his blatent disregard for human life, I don't see a lot to admire in this guy. Then again, that's my own bias showing.

[Liberation Angel]

65. I don't admire killers, and I assume he is probably a killer, BUT...

that is NOT to say that calling him a freedom fighter is somehow wrong. To those who BELIEVE he is fighting against oppression and imperialism and fascism using violence, he IS a freedom fighter.

He MIGHT be for all I know.

But freedom fighters, just like "terrorists" are in the eye of the beholder.

I can see why it is reasonable for Chavez to consider him a revolutionary fighter because he sure as hell was --- but he might be a lot of other things too - including an extremist left wing fascist who beat his wife or killed for money. I honestly have no idea whether the evidence against him is good or is trumped up but he seems to be an admitted militant for the Palestinian cause which will sure get you a LOT of bad press globally (as well as some good press in some places)

[Liberation Angel]

57. As for Mugabe - again the mainstream media is unreliable

as is the general info available.

Wiki has a good counter-analysis which essentially says while Mugabe is a mess the reality is that imperialism is responsible for the overall mess.

I can see why Chavez can identify with militants who oppose western and U.S. imperialism and who are demonized in the American media (including DU).

Why wouldn't he say that George W, Bush and our CIA or Mossad are the real evils when they torture and murder etc and manipulate and assassinate in the third world (we ALL know they do).

Is Mugabe WORSE than George Bush or just a leftist opportunist reflection of the right wingers in the west.

Really, the hypocrisy here at DU is pretty deep.

I oppose ALL violence but feel we should be just as critical of those who foment the violence as against those who defend themselves from that violence with violence.

And those who are corrupt. like the Bushes or Carlos or Mugabe, are just reflections of corruption. But if they are leftists opposing or reacting to the violence from the right, are they any worse than our home grown killers?

[AlphaCentauri]

60. Your comment is well balance

Many people express in public rejection for acts they support in private and they show their indignation when someone like Chavez express the feelings they hide.

[Liberation Angel]

64. Not quite sure I have your perspective right but--- is Chavez that bad?

thanks, I think.

My biggest issue in many of these debates or discussions or to diatribes against Chavez or the Israelis or Palestinains or whomever is that WE, the US, HAS been just as responsible for violence, murder, assassination, terrorism etc as any other country and actually probably on a much greater scale than nearly any other country ever (Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Russia and possibly the Khmer Rouge being the most notable competition for the most horrific in terms of numbers and sheer terror.

We killed millions in SE Asia and we have killed hundreds of thousands in the Middle East wars and surrounding conflicts. Africa has been a shitstorm of death as has Latin and Central America at the hands of the US for decades and decades. Not to mention the atrocities in israel and Palestine (on both sides)

So freaking our because Chavez says Ilich Sanchex Ramirez (fashioned Carlos the Jackal by the media based on a flawed assertion that he had the book Day of the Jackal in his possession when arrested (it wasn't even his book, apparently)) a Venezuelan Communist and hired gun for extreme leftist militant groups (and maybe others who needed his services - though he is in jail for allegedly proPalestinian acts of war and death), is a "freedom fighter" and compadre and revolutionary fighter is just imperialist or idiotic blather.

Same goes for Mugabe.

I remember when he was a hero to many as a Marxist PanAfrican nationalist patriot overthrowing a brutal apartheid system in "Rhodesiia" (a country named for British gold/diamond imperialist Cecil Rhodes for whom the Clinton-received Rhodes Scholarship is named.

And maybe, like most leaders who rise to the top like scum, they are corrupt or get corrupted or assimilate the oppression against them and utilize it in their defense. or maybe they lose all morality and do whatever keeps them alive or rich and in power.

But why are they any worse than our own criminal presidents like the Bushes and Nixon or their assassin squads run out of Dick Cheney's office.

Is Chavez somehow WORSE than Cheney and Dubya?

I do not see it.

Reagan called the murderous contras "freedom fighters"

But what really irks me is that we in the US and at DU and on the left point fingers and attack people abroad for their response to imperialism and totalitarian corporofascism when the fingers SHOULD be pointed at US: WE pay the taxes which finance terror and war and torture and we ALLOW or ENABLE our leaders to do so no less than the Germans allowed and enabled Hitler to do so in Germany.

Obama is not perfect. Neother is Chavez. No one really is.

But they are far better than what the options are in most cases.

And this is nitpicking and disinformation/propaganda at its weakest and stupidest: only really naive persons wpuld fall for these attacks on Chavez.

Yeah the Iranian pres is an idiot and that is a brutal state: but WE created that state due to our fucked up interventions there.

Glass houses

stones

throw away

but it is OUR house that is going to get its glasses broken

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

66. I'm left wondering where exactly you draw the line and deem those in Latin America, or Africa,

or anywhere else for that matter responsible for their own actions, instead of giving them a free pass by saying their actions are simply a reaction to ours? Because this "It's the First World's fault!" reasoning hasn't done a damn thing to help Africa off it's knees, nor Latin America for that matter.

[EFerrari]

68. You might read up on why that is and how the so called First World

has and continues to prey upon Africa and Latin America. Lain America is fighting back effectively maybe for the first time in four hundred years. And that's why the nonstop attacks on the democratic leaders, Chavez, Morales, Correa, and Co.

This is a good place to start:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Veins_of_Latin_America

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

70. And again, I'll ask the question: at what point do you start to hold Africans, Latin Americans, etc.

accountable for the state of affairs in their own parts of the world? Where do you start to draw the line? When does every misstep, every misdeed, every mismanaged economy, every tyrant stop being the exclusive fault of the First World? I don't blame you for not answering. It isn't an easy question to tackle.

Also, I agree that Latin America is making some strides towards effectively fighting back, however - and this seems to be where we differ - I believe it's a mistake to assume that every criticism leveled at these leaders is based around a desire to somehow get back at them or ensure that Latin America remains under the boot heel of First World nations. There are very legitimate reasons for these, and all, leaders to be criticized, whether they're seen as anti-imperialist or not.

[AlphaCentauri]

71. When Latin America attains the age of majority

If the first world keeps thinking that those countries are like kids that needs to be under the boot of troops, agents and corruption from the first world, what has to be expected?

When the first world see those countries as independent adults then there will be a better understanding, but it's not going to happened opening military bases in colombia or honduras or financing an assisting political parties in Mexico or kidnapping presidents in Haiti.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

76. Independent adults

It's an unfortunate reality that the kind of respect that we'd all like to see these nations treated with is not granted freely in this world, it must be earned. But these nations will not earn it if we continually sit on the sidelines and insist "Blame the U.S.! Blame Europe!" is a legitimate excuse for their continued failures. I would argue this, the kind of change you're talking about will not occur simply by people in the First World opening their minds. It will only occur if that's coupled with serious reform in many of these countries - i.e. them acting like the adults they want to be treated as.

[AlphaCentauri]

79. The only way the US and Europe consider any country inside their adult hood

and treat them with respect is when those countries get nuclear arms or show their potential to sustain a war. China, India, east Europe, even Japan are clear examples or I would ad, capitalist dictators like the kings and princes of the middle east, where we venerate Kuwait's royal family while we condemn Venezuela's democracy.

Now what serious reforms the first world wants in Latin America?
For more than 40 years Latin America has switched their economies to the neo-liberal free market system, they have sent their kids to study Milton Friedman's concepts of economic to the US, we can see how many of the past Latin American presidents were awarded titles in US universities but that didn't make any difference.
Also Reaganomics in Latin America have been a failure, in the last 25 years we can see the waves of poor immigrants living those countries for the US or Europe.
So things had changed in many respect over the years but always fail to bring the Latin American people the respect and wealth they deserve but in all those decades of failure there is a common denominator and that is the intervention of the US in their countries affairs.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

81. Military might is only part of the equation

After all, Pakistan has nukes and few would consider that a responsible, grown up, respectable nation. Don't get me wrong, it certainly helps, but it's hardly the point on which respect begins or ends. Other important factors must also be present - for instance a viable economy and some efforts at reining in corruption. An abundance of resources also helps, but that's only one factor as well. Plenty of corrupt, mismanaged, holes in the ground have an abundance of resources. That alone is not what makes a nation respected.

Also, I wouldn't phrase it as "what serious reforms the First World wants in Latin America". The First World could care less if these reforms are made. In fact, the less of them that take root, the easier it is for the First World to funnel off Latin America's wealth and natural resources. As I see it, the question is "what serious reforms will have to take place before the First World treats Latin America with respect". The main one's being strictly enforced anti-corruption measures and some level of land and wealth redistribution.

I agree with your points regarding Reaganomics, the implementation of neo-liberalism, and, hell, pretty much your entire second paragraph.

[EFerrari]

72. You don't blame me for not answering?

That's rich. lol

If you were to read anything substantive about Latin America, you would find that the only "tyrants" that managed to stay in power did so because they were bought and paid for by the United States.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

77. It's as if you didn't read my last post at all

I mean, when you consider the fact that you didn't respond to either of my points, but instead posted a snide "if you were to read anything substantive" comment. Since you missed them the last time around, I'll restate them for you. First, at some point, one must draw a line and hold nations in the developing world accountable for what happens there. Not every evil can be blamed on First World nations and - in reality - those who do so do a great disservice to the very people they claim to sympathize with. Secondly, it's dangerous to treat leaders as if their faultless angels simply because they're seemingly anti-imperialist. Amin has been talked about a bit in this thread and he's a perfect example as to why that's the case. And finally, in response to your latest post, I'm aware of the role the United States has played in the region, however, I'm also aware of the fact that U.S. money is generally not the only reason that U.S. backed tyrants have chosen to act in the ways that they have.

[Liberation Angel]

78. Faultless Angels? No One said that and moreover...Fascism is the cause...

You speak in such general terms that it is kind of hard to respond but because you paint with a broad brush you miss the point I was trying to make - altho I accept your questions as valid ones from your perspective even while disagreeing with the underlying broad assumptions.

I was speaking solely of the issue of Chavez addressing the fact that he identifies Mugabe, Ramirez ("Carlos") and Amadinejad (sp?) as anti-imperialist "fighters".

My perspective is that Chavez's perspective is that these three have stood up against US and "imperialist" powers (primarily Britain and the US and to some extent with respect to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict Israel - leaving aside recent criticisms of the UN National Security Council).

All I am really trying to say is that this perspective is just an example o how terminology and labeling of people as "terrorists" or freedom fighters is ONLY a matter of which side you are on in any given military struggle. So Chavez's perspective neither surprises nor outrgaes nor troubles me at all: The idea that Chavez is a loony leftist terrorist/communist sympathizer and enabler is simply a mainstream Western media perspective that the US is always right and those who oppose US interests are always wrong - especially when they are militant about it.

In my opinion killing of innocent civilians is always wrong and war (except when required for legitimate self defense - which is also a matter of perspective) is also wrong. So in that sense I am saying that it is hypocritical to attack Chavez or even Mugabe or Ramirez UNLESS one is equally outraged at GWBush and Cheney and the US wars of aggression which to me are as abhorrent and heinous as anything those on the left have done and perhaps far worse.

Finally fascism is really the bottom line here in Africa and South/Latin America. The US (or some elements in the US, not always governmental) has used murder, torture, political assassination, coups, terror, etc. throughout Latin America and Africa (and Asia and elsewhere) for centuries and has ratcheted up these elements in recent decades (especially since WWII era).

The consequences of evil actions are that we corrupt and destroy and create monsters in other countries. That is NOT to say that the monsters we create are blameless or innocent or angels: they can be corrupt killers and mercenaries and despots who may or may not be agents of our own intel/military apparatchik (who the hell knows who any of these people really work for?)

But for the most part I see Chavez's point of view while not necessarily agreeing with it or all of it or even most of it: it is rhetoric BUT it also underscores the fundamental issue which he is trying to raise and which I am addressing: Global imperialism from the US and the West (not to mention Russia or China which have their own issues in this vein) has destabilized much of the globe and because there were (and still are to some extent) fascist elements and tendencies within our own governments and leadership the RESPONSE to these elements is often stupid and futile and corrupt violence and chaos (which is what you have to differnet extents in many third world countries, but most notably today Iran. Zimbabwe and Afghanistan).

Chavez makes the point that the western media (and even those on the socalled left like some folks here at DU) fail to understand or represent the fact that the global power conflicts are, to a significant degree, a war between imperialism of a fascist variety and those who are less powerful - usually in the third world (essentially Euro-Anglo-American vs the third world).

His position that some of these folks are revolutionary fighters and are not simply terrorists (in the naivest and simplest utilization of that word) is, in my opinion, a valid one.

That is NOT to say that any of those who Chavez recognizes as such are saintly or better than our own US terrorists like Cheney and Bush (or any less corrupt): it is only to point out that in such a war between economic and ethnic opponents that "heroism" or "nobility" o the CAUSE depends on which side you support and the TACTICS (whether they be rhetorical, military or economic) also are subject to differnetiation of whether they are just or unjust depending on which side you support.

And AGAIN when individuals are personally or institutionally corrupt, stupid, ignorant or just plain evil (or, as Chavez, sometimes blundering, at least in the eyes of pro-US media) that is partly a manifestation of WHAT WE CREATED due to our foreign policie AND their own weakness or evil or stupidity as human beings.

I am not giving any of these characters a pass or carte blanche because they oppose fascism --- But I also believe it is ludicrous to ignore the role the US has played in creating these characters and how WE have blundered and splattered blood all of over Africa and Latin America and Asia resulting in the rise of such characters. (and that again is NOT to say that any of them MIGHT not be agents of our own in a LIHOP scenario - Mugabe and Amenidejad especially, like Arafat or Osama)

Sure - these countries just like us need to be responsible nations and have responsible leaders and polcies. But who the hell are WE to criticize when our record is so bloodsoaked and violent and stupid, especially in the past ten years.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

82. Some agreement

Don't get me wrong, I can understand how people look at people like Carlos the Jackal, Mugabe, or even Idi Amin from that perspective. However, I simply think it's stupid to focus on one aspect of these individuals instead of making judgments about them based on all of the available information. After all, and Amin proves this perfectly, one can be anti-imperialistic and still be responsible for some absolutely horrific things.

Also, I would argue that by not acknowledging this, Chavez is painting himself into the very corner his opponents have attempted to put him in since he first came to power.

I agree with your point that the U.S. is partly responsible for the leaders it has helped bring to power, for the actions of the groups it has backed, etc. My point is simply this, dumping *all* responsibility at the feet of the United States (or Russia, or any other power clandestinely involved) is a bit foolish and reduces the actors to puppets on a string, incapable of independent thought or action, and quite simply, that's rarely the case. We seem to be in agreement on this though, if I'm not mistaken?

[EFerrari]

85. Now you're attributing to Chavez what he hasn't said, thought or done.

He isn't painting anything. You are. \

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

89. Look, I realize you like the guy an awful lot, but

he's the one who's chosen to praise Carlos the Jackal and downplay the crimes of Idi Amin, not me. Is he simply oblivious to the fact that this kind of talk plays right into the hands of his critics or what? What's your insight?

[Liberation Angel]

86. More or less...

A few things:

The mainstream US or western media manipulates info about all these people so it is hard to get "all the available information" but especially hard where most of the info is slanted.

I am not convinced thw Chavez is painting himself into a corner so much as he is being paintd into the corner by media/political propaganda BUT he doesn't help himself by making statements that are intentionally controversial and confrontational knowing that they will be spun against him. I imagine that like any leader he lives to some degree in a bubble and has his own ego issues which make him feel as if he needs to do this (and who knows if it ultimately will help him or not).

He wants to galvanize his base and his international support and street creds as a revolutionary and in the end that might work or it mighjt work against him: it is rhetoric and is a slap at the "beast" of imperialism. But failure to acknowledge the evils of evil men will hurt him (and still this "evil" is all to some degree relative depending on your perspective - you and I may agree that collateral damage and assassination is wrong, but the US and other governments still commit these crimes in our name).

When speaking of the "creation" of leaders by the US I was also referring to the opposition which arose in response to what the US wrought: Iran is the best example: idiocy by the CIA and mil-intel complex installed a brute fascist prowestern thug and torturer and resulted in the Iranian revolution and what we have today in Amadinejad. We may not have installed him (or who knows maybe we did) but we helped to create him and the idiots/killers who keep him in power and kill their opponents.

My ultimate purpose in posting was to say that it is not black and white here (on Chavez and his statements); there are facets of this story and his rhetoric and policies which do not lend themselves to simplisitic analysis as I often see on the Chavez issues here at DU.

For better or worse Chavez is one of the first indigenous Native Latin Americans in a long time to challenge the gringos and his life has been on the line and is every day. His perspective and those of his supporters must factor in that he has been on the front lines of a struggle that may have warped his thinking and ego but which speaks for many many people who feel oppressed and many who are in fact oppressed and threatened by western imperialism and corporate fascism.

As such attacking him for supporting "terrorism" when he himself has been a victim of US terrorism (the coup) is just too simplistic a rant for me to remain silent. It needs more intelligent analysis and discussion which i was trying to bring to it as best I could.

Every leader and every individual is responsible for their actions --- from Obama to Bush to Cheney to Chavez to Netanyahu to Abbas to whomever. But what they do and how they are shaped is, in part at least, a result of powers which are at work beyond their control. It is multifaceted. Complex. Not given intelligently to easy or cavalier dictums of good and evil.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

88. Nicely put

I pretty much agree with everything you've written. In particular: the difficulty in obtaining all of the available information on controversial figures, that many of these statements are Chavez's attempts to galvinize his base and maintain a certain level of street cred. (and to take a swipe at imperialism), and that the United States bears some responsibility for the long-term consequences of its policies, even when those consequences were not intended.

I also generally agree with your assessment of Chavez's importance to Latin America, the complexity of these situations, and the fact that it is unfair to characterize Chavez exclusively as a supporter of terrorism.

[Flanker]

69. To claim this is disturbing would be an understatement

Chavez wrote to the Jackal 10 years ago and then nothing, not a word as if that had been an embarrassing blunder, but to bring it back today is disturbing and possibly dangerous omen. He is not a world leader that can give him something in return, just a martyr to the violent wing of the Venezuelan left.

His popularity is plummeting, the economy is not recovering, and nationalizations occur based on whims. One thing is for sure, we will see the real Chavez soon.

[Liberation Angel]

80. This is a media fluff piece imho

AP needs to sell its content and it is really not much more than a National Enquirer "scandal" headline.

The REAL story is in the article but the lead is just blather:

besides Chavez's speech defending Ramirez and others was IN RESPONSE to statements by Shimon Perez that the Venezuelans were going to eliminate Chavez soon.

Chavez, not very astutely (or maybe to embolden his proPalestinian base of support internationally), was trying hamfistedly to strike back at threats against him.

A search on the AP author shows a number of rather interesting articles on Chavez's attempts to form alliances with African and other "anti-imperialist" leaders (notably Libya's Gaddahfi).

Chavez has aligned himself in opposition to Israel's right wing and this is, imho, what most of these attacks on him result from as well as his response to these attacks. he cut off relations with Israel when they invaded gaza and the war of words has continued since then with assertions that Chavez would be "taken out" soon rumblings.

The AP bureau chief in Caracas loves thse scandalous stories and does hype the "scary" Chavez element BUT they are also VERY interesting when you check the actual content.

I think we ARE seeing the real Chavez who seems to have too much of a Messianic complex for his own good (is he really fearless, brave, or just naive?).

You really can't play like this for long with the big boys and expect to survive for very long. But who knows?

Maybe he has friends in high places and this is ALL just smoke and mirrors boogeyman stuff to keep us all taut and frightened.

Chavez loves to hear himself speak and loves the media attention he gets with outrageous or intense rhetoric and actions (the Obama book thing) mere gestures which really show how powerless he is in global realpolitik.

I admire much of what he has done. But I do feel he is getting suckered in to the far right's tar baby: he can hit it but he will get stuck in the briar patch.

To many poor and Indio's in Latin America he IS a messiah of their own ethnicity and color and MUCH better than the fascists before him, but to Wall Street and the rightists and capitalists of the world he is a pariah and thus dangerous

[ChangoLoa]

95. I agree on many things you say here

But unfortunately, many of the "fascists" before him (who, btw were also leftists) had better results in their social policies (housing, hospitals and schools built, reduction of poverty and illiteracy, among other examples). Someone has convinced you of a false stereotype. If interested, check the evolution of Venezuela from the late 50's to the late 70's. You'll understand how fake is the image that his government has been trying to diffuse, concerning Venezuelan history, since the beginning of his period.

[Liberation Angel]

96. got links?

that would help

[varelse]

99. Anyone have a link to the full speech?

I can read Spanish, so it doesn't need to be a translation. I'm curious now about what the speech was about (i.e. the "context" of the quoted or paraphrased excerpts).

[Liberation Angel]

100. sorry no habla

1 thing troubling about this article is that without the speech or links to it there is no context which gets glossed over here by the anti-chavezistas.

i imagine a search might find it though