Except troops are relief workers which makes that entire argument worse than stupid.
It may or may not be a stupid argument. I'll leave that up to people who are familiar with relief efforts.
But you said Chavez's criticism of US relief efforts could
only be because he thought these efforts had a nefarious purpose. Whether his belief that US efforts were less effective than they could have been is wise or stupid, it is the reason he gave -- and it is quite different from the one you misrepresented him as giving.
It is one thing for you to mistakenly misrepresent what Chavez said. Alferd Packerd also misrepresented what Chavez said -- but when this was demonstrated to him, he accepted he had been mistaken and apologized. That is how a skeptic should behave. To continue to defend a dishonest point in the fashion you are doing is not.
If you honestly believe Chavez said what you have attributed to him, please find a transcript of the remark and share it with the rest of us. If he did not say what you attributed to him, please be honest enough to state that.
You conveniently left out the most important part of my post "He did claim the USA was using the Haiti quake as a pretext to invade that country in order to use it as a springboard to attack Cuba, or him, or something."
No. That won't do. The words
or something tacked onto a purported quote are not an all-purpose excuse card for distorting or lying about what someone else has said. What the words
or something mean in that context is
or something similar to that.
You claimed that Chavez said that "
the USA was using the Haiti quake as a pretext to invade that country in order to use it as a springboard to attack Cuba, or him, or something....." The or something indicates you don't remember this exactly but it is something like what you have represented. For instance, he may not have used the exact word pretext. He may not have used the exact word invasion. He may have referred to a country other than Cuba or Venezuela. But for your representation of his remarks to be a fair representation of his remarks, he needs to have said the US was planning something like an invasion of some country such as Cuba or Venezuela. Chavez's actual statement says nothing of the kind.
Here. Let me demonstrate for you the limits of an
or something clause. Suppose someone started a thread saying that you have said you enjoy molesting goats. And suppose I were to defend you by saying that this is not true, you have not said that, but that you have said that you rarely saw girls in your college library because you preferred spending time raping your sister or something.
I mean, that's true, isn't it? You did say in a post that you rarely saw girls in your college library. And if I didn't get the part about you liking to rape your sister exactly right, well, I qualified that with the
or something, so no problem, right?
No. The
or something would not excuse my posting scurrilous misrepresentations of what you have said. And it doesn't excuse you posting scurrilous misrepresentations of what Chavez has said.
Indicating that not even I can look into the crazy mind of Chavez and discern what ratball of illlogic is being kicked around at that moment. Maybe he thinks it's a jumping off point for an invasion of Cuba or Venezuela or maybe he thinks they're setting up a worldwide plague of clowns. Who knows what that nutbag is thinking about when he dispenses his vile brain droppings?
Interesting. You get caught misrepresenting what Chavez has said, and instead of admitting you were wrong and apologizing for spreading misinformation, as Alferd did, you choose instead to blame
your mistake on Chavez.
Maybe he does think it's a jumping point for an invasion. Maybe you do think raping your sister is a lot of fun. As you say, who knows? But until or unless he or you say any such things, it is dishonest to claim that he or you have.
