Hugo Chavez Loves Free Speech...

[DC]

and not talking about if and how much has been payed is normal behavior in case of hostages.

 

[McHrozni]

you make claims of the Venezuelan Government beeing biased.

They certainly have motive and means to be biased. No, use an independent source.

and about the coup. there atleast i have seen the video from the bridge.
from Colombia i have seen nothing. only a report that says they found no manipulated data.

So according to you, one video from a bridge adequately proves the coup in 2002 was indeed a result of false information, because people thought the Chavistas were shooting the non-Chavistas, while they weren't?

Yes or no, please.

i have made no claim, not against Colombia nor against Venezuela.

Nope, but you made at least one for Venezuela. Prove it to the extent you're requiring all evidence against Venezuela to be proven, or admit you're a hypocrite.

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

and not talking about if and how much has been payed is normal behavior in case of hostages.

So is not showing sensitive intelligence data, but you weren't buying that earlier on. Would you care to explain why you accept this fact, but not that one?

McHrozni

 

[Meed]

A vast majority of chemical weapons are abiotic in origin. I don't know of any chemical weapon of a biotic origin, there are about three candidates, one of which - Botulinum toxin - could actually become a potent weapon, but no evidence either has ever been made into a weapon. It's possible a prototype exists somewhere, but I doubt it.

Okay, fair enough.

The US (and other countries) authorized the sale of pathogenic and toxic agents with high applicability to chemical and biological weapon development to Sadam Hussein, while also providing him with significant financial credits. Hussein used chemical weapons against the Iranians and the Kurds. He also developed biological weapons using anthrax, aflatoxin, and botulinum toxin. Biological weapons were deployed in the Gulf War, but (to my knowledge) never actually used.

I hope that's more accurate.

 

[McHrozni]

Okay, fair enough.

The US (and other countries) authorized the sale of pathogenic and toxic agents with high applicability to chemical and biological weapon development to Sadam Hussein, while also providing him with significant financial credits. Hussein used chemical weapons against the Iranians and the Kurds. He also developed biological weapons using anthrax, aflatoxin, and botulinum toxin. Biological weapons were deployed in the Gulf War, but (to my knowledge) never actually used.

I hope that's more accurate.

Sure, just remember that whenever someone asks if Saddam was a potential threat or not

McHrozni

 

[Meed]

Sure, just remember that whenever someone asks if Saddam was a potential threat or not

McHrozni

That depends.. threat to whom and at what time? After his failure in war with Iran, his failure in invading Kuwait and the no-fly zones and sanctions imposed on him I don't believe he was a threat to the United States or even a large threat to neighboring countries. Especially after inspection efforts were upped by the UN. Before all that he was obviously a threat to his neighbors, but not much of a threat to Western powers, in my opinion. He was always more than a "threat" to his own people. For humanitarian reasons, I'm glad he was finally taken out.

 

[funk de fino]

Gents

The FARC stuff is a derail and has been reported. There is another thread that discusses this. It only allows the Chavistas to ignore the IAHR report that damns their hero.

 

[funk de fino]

Okay, fair enough.

The US (and other countries) authorized the sale of pathogenic and toxic agents with high applicability to chemical and biological weapon development to Sadam Hussein, while also providing him with significant financial credits. Hussein used chemical weapons against the Iranians and the Kurds. He also developed biological weapons using anthrax, aflatoxin, and botulinum toxin. Biological weapons were deployed in the Gulf War, but (to my knowledge) never actually used.

I hope that's more accurate.

Yes, hindsight is a wonderful thing though eh? Read the report yet?

 

[Meed]

If you think we sold Sadam Hussein anthrax, nerve agents and other such materials with the assumption that they would be used strictly for innocent purposes, I think you're being naive. But you're free to your own interpretation.

I haven't read the report yet. As I said I looked at it and it did seem indicate legitimate problems.

 

[McHrozni]

The FARC stuff is a derail and has been reported. There is another thread that discusses this.

Hmm, where is it?

McHrozni

 

[funk de fino]

If you think we sold Sadam Hussein anthrax, nerve agents and other such materials with the assumption that they would be used strictly for innocent purposes, I think you're being naive. But you're free to your own interpretation.

I am assuming you have read little on the actual sales of these ingredients and the terms they were sold under. One company sold the spores legitimitly to Saddam. At what point does mind reading come into play with business decisions in your world? It was not one big organisation that sold him everything in one go. You have to connect a lot of dots to get where you are.

BTW - Its also a derail.

 

[Meed]

Yeah, it's a derail so I'll leave it alone even though we disagree.

 

[DC]

They certainly have motive and means to be biased. No, use an independent source.

and Columbia has no motive to be biased?

So according to you, one video from a bridge adequately proves the coup in 2002 was indeed a result of false information, because people thought the Chavistas were shooting the non-Chavistas, while they weren't?

Yes or no, please.

no, you also need to know what the soldiers said they thought and what led them to act against the elected government. you also need to know about snipers on roofs and all that. but there testemonies video fotos and all kind of information is avaible.

Nope, but you made at least one for Venezuela. Prove it to the extent you're requiring all evidence against Venezuela to be proven, or admit you're a hypocrite.

McHrozni

if the Columbian government would present the evidence we could take a look at it and see what it says, if it is indeed evidence. but sofar we dont know it.

they would not be the first government that belives or claims to have evidence that later turns out to be not evidence at all. we should have learned that lesson.

 

[DC]

another case where a Government had evidence, facts based on solid intel.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYI7JXGqd0o

 

[McHrozni]

and Columbia has no motive to be biased?

It sure has, but they're the ones claiming to have the evidence. Sooner or later this evidence will have to be shared - and indeed it already was with some countries, in private. None raised objections over what the said evidence said.

The only thing we have from Venezuela, however, is their word.

no, you also need to know what the soldiers said they thought and what led them to act against the elected government. you also need to know about snipers on roofs and all that. but there testemonies video fotos and all kind of information is avaible.

Where is it available? Evidence, not claims, remember?

if the Columbian government would present the evidence we could take a look at it and see what it says, if it is indeed evidence. but sofar we dont know it.

And, as I have said earlier, there are legitimate reasons for that.

they would not be the first government that belives or claims to have evidence that later turns out to be not evidence at all. we should have learned that lesson.

True. However you seem to believe Venezuelan word rather readily, but are extremely reluctant to believe anything coming from Colombia.

McHrozni

 

[DC]

It sure has, but they're the ones claiming to have the evidence. Sooner or later this evidence will have to be shared - and indeed it already was with some countries, in private. None raised objections over what the said evidence said.

The only thing we have from Venezuela, however, is their word.

what do you expect from Venezuela?

Where is it available? Evidence, not claims, remember?

as it was used in a Venezuelan court im sure you will not accept it as evidence.

And, as I have said earlier, there are legitimate reasons for that.

and as i have said earlier, im not buying that excuse.

FARC knows what is on thsoe electronic devices, so they know what is evidence and what not. no reasson to withhold the evidence. because to FARC it is already known.

True. However you seem to believe Venezuelan word rather readily, but are extremely reluctant to believe anything coming from Colombia.

McHrozni

no there are alot Venezuelans i distrust. especially politicans.
but how trustworthy is columbia? i had the impression you also think freedom of the press is important, and columbia is doing even worse than Venezuela in this.

 

[McHrozni]

what do you expect from Venezuela?

If the money sent was for remotely legitimate reasons - like paying for hostages or something like that, they should come forward, admit they sent them money and explain why did they do it.
If the money didn't come from Venezuela, they should call Colombia out for distributing lies.

They have done neither, which leads me to suspect the third option - they were indeed financing FARC - plausible.

It is true that Venezuelans officials may disagree with me, so this is not evidence of any kind, but it is a reasonable conclusion.

as it was used in a Venezuelan court im sure you will not accept it as evidence.

Of course I don't trust any Venezuelan court. That said, I'm willing to look at your evidence, if you have any at all. It is possible the evidence they had was legit and their decision was correct. However the fact a Venezuelan court accepted the argument doesn't say anything about it's validity.

So where is it?

and as i have said earlier, im not buying that excuse.

Double standards, got it

FARC knows what is on thsoe electronic devices, so they know what is evidence and what not. no reasson to withhold the evidence. because to FARC it is already known.

Do they? Please submit evidence that demonstrates in no uncertain terms the FARC high command knows exactly which computers, external hard drives and USB flash drives were seized and exactly the information that was on them, including the information that was supposed to be destroyed in an event such as this. I should stress I need evidence and not claims.

I guess I'll wait for a long, long while, eh?

no there are alot Venezuelans i distrust. especially politicans.
but how trustworthy is columbia? i had the impression you also think freedom of the press is important, and columbia is doing even worse than Venezuela in this.

So? I never said Colombia is without their own problems. I really see no need for them to be perfect in order for Chavez to be scum. Colombia demonstrated they indeed got information of FARC-Venezuela relationship to my satisfaction. For a courtroom decision I would require more of course, including what they have and how does it lead to Venezuela, but I trust their analysis outside of court, not in the least because they have very little (read: absolutely no) reason to finger Venezuela for something they haven't actually done.

McHrozni

 

[DC]

If the money sent was for remotely legitimate reasons - like paying for hostages or something like that, they should come forward, admit they sent them money and explain why did they do it.
If the money didn't come from Venezuela, they should call Colombia out for distributing lies.

They have done neither, which leads me to suspect the third option - they were indeed financing FARC - plausible.

It is true that Venezuelans officials may disagree with me, so this is not evidence of any kind, but it is a reasonable conclusion.

claims from Chavez agsint claims from Columbia are not helpfull at all.

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/americas/05/15/colombia.computers/index.html

Of course I don't trust any Venezuelan court. That said, I'm willing to look at your evidence, if you have any at all. It is possible the evidence they had was legit and their decision was correct. However the fact a Venezuelan court accepted the argument doesn't say anything about it's validity.

So where is it?

would you accpet evidence from a Columbian court?

Double standards, got it

you gat a mirror at hand?

Do they? Please submit evidence that demonstrates in no uncertain terms the FARC high command knows exactly which computers, external hard drives and USB flash drives were seized and exactly the information that was on them, including the information that was supposed to be destroyed in an event such as this. I should stress I need evidence and not claims.

I guess I'll wait for a long, long while, eh?

LOL they only need to read the Interpol report. they would even see pictures of their laptops.

be honest, you didnt even read the Interpol report.

So? I never said Colombia is without their own problems. I really see no need for them to be perfect in order for Chavez to be scum. Colombia demonstrated they indeed got information of FARC-Venezuela relationship to my satisfaction. For a courtroom decision I would require more of course, including what they have and how does it lead to Venezuela, but I trust their analysis outside of court, not in the least because they have very little (read: absolutely no) reason to finger Venezuela for something they haven't actually done.

McHrozni

and you accuse me of double standard
funny

 

[McHrozni]

claims from Chavez agsint claims from Columbia are not helpfull at all.

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/americas/05/15/colombia.computers/index.html

Ah, I see. It's a lot worse than I imagined - unless Interpol is lying in our faces, Chavez did indeed fund terrorists. Why else would he issue such a knee-jerk reaction to the report?

would you accpet evidence from a Columbian court?

It would depend on what would the evidence say, I wouldn't accept it out of hand, same as with Venezuela.

LOL they only need to read the Interpol report. they would even see pictures of their laptops.

You really should know that doesn't prove anything. Prove FARC knew which computers and other pieces of equipment were there, for example the serial numbers of all compromised equipment (including any pieces that were destroyed or lost during the raid, in case any were - not an unlikely event in the slightest). Prove they knew exactly what devices contained, what they didn't contain and which information might have been destroyed in time and which information was there but didn't fall into Colombian hands. Prove they know exactly what Colombia may connect this with to find out about other money trails FARC uses to finance itself.
In short, you need to demonstrate to the point of certainty, insofar as this is possible, that FARC already knows all the relevant information. Right now all you have is that it is not impossible for them to know it, but it is extremely implausible that they do.

You require evidence, not claims or speculation remember?

I'm in for a very long wait, aren't I?

be honest, you didnt even read the Interpol report.

Not the whole thing, no. Should I have?

and you accuse me of double standard
funny

Would you care to elaborate where I'm using double standards?

McHrozni

 

[DC]

Ah, I see. It's a lot worse than I imagined - unless Interpol is lying in our faces, Chavez did indeed fund terrorists. Why else would he issue such a knee-jerk reaction to the report?

lol thats comedy pure.

It would depend on what would the evidence say, I wouldn't accept it out of hand, same as with Venezuela.

huh? so when the government of Columbia claims to have evidence you belive it.

but when the evidence gomes from a Columbian court, you first want to know what the evidence actually says.

that is very interesting.

You really should know that doesn't prove anything. Prove FARC knew which computers and other pieces of equipment were there, for example the serial numbers of all compromised equipment (including any laptops that were destroyed or lost during the raid, in case any were - not an unlikely event in the slightest). Prove they knew exactly what devices contained, what they didn't contain and which information might have been destroyed in time and which information was there but didn't fall into Colombian hands. Prove they know exactly what Colombia may connect this with to find out about other money trails FARC uses to finance itself.
In short, you need to demonstrate to the point of certainty, insofar as this is possible, that FARC already knows all the relevant information. Right now all you have is that it is not impossible for them to know it, but it is extremely implausible that they do.

You require evidence, not claims or speculation remember?

I'm in for a very long wait, aren't I?

again, FARC only need to read the Interpol report.

Item 26:
Toshiba Satellite M55-5331
bearing serial number
16239763K


Item 27:
One Laptop Toshiba Satellite
M55-5331 bearing serial number
16238282K


Item 28:
One Laptop Toshiba Satellite
U205-S5057 bearing serial
number 17040828H


Item 30:
One external hard drive LACIE
bearing serial number
JJ86708J60054QR


Item 31:
One external hard disk LACIE
bearing serial number
SJHHRDMH


Item 32:
One USB thumb drive
SANDISK SDCZ6-2048RB
bearing serial number
BE0707AAFB


Item 33:
One USB thumb drive Cruzer
Micro 2 GB bearing serial
number 33


Item 34:
One USB thumb drive
KINSTONCN J02907 04223-
3171002F

Not the whole thing, no. Should I have?

yes. also interesting are the parts about dates in the future, or Columbian authorities not following international standards in handlin electronic evidence etc.

Would you care to elaborate where I'm using double standards?

McHrozni

just reread your posts