Hugo Chavez Loves Free Speech...

[WildCat]

http://www.gulfwarvets.com/arison/banking.htm



http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/12/31/world/main534798.shtml

That's nice, but you claimed the US sold actual chemical and biological weapons to Iraq, not medical and pharmaceutical devices that could be used for other things.

And how many of these biological weapons existed? IIRC the number found post-invasion was... zero.

 

[McHrozni]

did Interpol confirm the accuracy of the evidence or did they just search for altered files on the electronic devices found?

According to Interpol:

INTERPOL found no evidence that user files were created, modified
or deleted on any of the eight seized FARC computer exhibits following their
seizure on 1 March 2008 by Colombian authorities.

(...)

Taking into account all of the above and based on a comprehensive forensic examination, INTERPOL’s experts conclude that no user files have been created, modified or deleted on any of the eight FARC computer exhibits following their seizure on 1 March 2008.

You seem to think that a forensic has to ensure the information he has is accurate. That is false - he needs to investigate what was sent to him for investigation. If fake evidence was sent to the forensics they are not at fault for giving erroneous findings.

There are three options:
- the laptops were not seized from FARC at all, but rather created by Colombian authorities prior to their seizure on March 1st 2008
- FARC was framing Venezuela by having fake information on their computers
- the information is accurate

Interpols' findings cannot distinguish between these three options, nor should they be expected to.

McHrozni

 

[DC]

According to Interpol:

INTERPOL found no evidence that user files were created, modified
or deleted on any of the eight seized FARC computer exhibits following their
seizure on 1 March 2008 by Colombian authorities.

(...)

Taking into account all of the above and based on a comprehensive forensic examination, INTERPOL’s experts conclude that no user files have been created, modified or deleted on any of the eight FARC computer exhibits following their seizure on 1 March 2008.

You seem to think that a forensic has to ensure the information he has is accurate. That is false - he needs to investigate what was sent to him for investigation. If fake evidence was sent to the forensics they are not at fault for giving erroneous findings.

There are three options:
- the laptops were not seized from FARC at all, but rather created by Colombian authorities prior to their seizure on March 1st 2008
- FARC was framing Venezuela by having fake information on their computers
- the information is accurate

Interpols' findings cannot distinguish between these three options, nor should they be expected to.

McHrozni

Interpol checked if the device send to them by the Colombia government contained manipulated data and if they handled the devices according to the rules for handling electronic evidence.

and like Interpol said, they did not conclude if the information and data on those devices are evidence against Venezuela. this must be done by a court for example.
Interpol themself pointed it out in the report.

so now we have to wait until this data is used and confirmed in court.
sofar we know no manipulation has been found and the devices have been mostly handled correct, and the part where it wasnt perfectly handled did not show any wrongdoing or manipulation.

But we do not know what this evidence says. and interpol did not look into that.

that was and is my point.

 

[Skeptic]

That's nice, but you claimed the US sold actual chemical and biological weapons to Iraq, not medical and pharmaceutical devices that could be used for other things.

And how many of these biological weapons existed? IIRC the number found post-invasion was... zero.

So the evil USA sent Iraq biological and chemical weapons, AND the poor innocent Iraq never had such weapons and the evil USA just fabricated the charges against the "leader of the sovereign nation of Iraq" (the guy who killed everybody who opposed him as he made the country into his and his family's personal concentration camp, that is.)

I wish they'd make up their mind.

 

[Meed]

That's nice, but you claimed the US sold actual chemical and biological weapons to Iraq, not medical and pharmaceutical devices that could be used for other things.

You are correct in pointing out the error of my phrasing. They were sold pathogenic agents which were developed into weapons. However, considering Sadam Hussein was a Stalinesque murderous dictator hostile to both a neighboring country and his own people, it's hardly a big surprise what he wanted the anthrax, nerve agents, etc. for. So yes, the sale was of the weapon ingredients, not the final products.

Also, it wasn't just the US doing this, but European countries.

And how many of these biological weapons existed? IIRC the number found post-invasion was... zero.

Ask the Kurds or the Iranians. Just because he didn't have them post-invasion doesn't mean he never had them.

 

[McHrozni]

and like Interpol said, they did not conclude if the information and data on those devices are evidence against Venezuela. this must be done by a court for example.
Interpol themself pointed it out in the report.

This is obviously because a forensic is not the person to decide what goes into a court and what doesn't. That's what the prosecutor or defender are for.

so now we have to wait until this data is used and confirmed in court.

No. Evidence is evidence if it was used in court or if it wasn't. Evidence that was used in court is the only evidence that can establish a legally binding settlement, but evidence that was not (yet) used in court points to a certain event and the guilt of a certain party regardless.

I must say I find your attempts at shifting goalposts rather pathetic.

McHrozni

 

[Meed]

So the evil USA sent Iraq biological and chemical weapons, AND the poor innocent Iraq never had such weapons and the evil USA just fabricated the charges against the "leader of the sovereign nation of Iraq" (the guy who killed everybody who opposed him as he made the country into his and his family's personal concentration camp, that is.)

I wish they'd make up their mind.

Uhhhhh, what? Please point me to where I've ever said "the poor innocent Iraq never had such weapons" or anything remotely close to that.

For that matter, I doubt you can find anyone on this forum who's claimed either that Iraq (at the regime level) was "innocent" or that they never had chemical/biological weapons.

Such a blatant strawman.

 

[funk de fino]

Ask the Kurds or the Iranians. Just because he didn't have them post-invasion doesn't mean he never had them.

How would they know? Have you any proof that biological agents were used agsinst either?

As far as I know the moron used chemical weapons against them. Biological weapons are a whole different ball game. Take it from someone who had the injections to prove it. As far as I know they never used any biological weapons even though he could have.

 

[Meed]

As far as I know the moron used chemical weapons against them.

I'm not versed in the distinction between chemical and biological weapons since there's a lot of overlap, hence my (somewhat lazily) lumping the two together. But you're right, he used chemical weapons on them.

 

[Archer17]

I'm not versed in the distinction between chemical and biological weapons since there's a lot of overlap, hence my (somewhat lazily) lumping the two together. But you're right, he used chemical weapons on them.

Easy way to differentiate between your basic biological and chemical weaponry:

Chemical - think chemicals. Your closet probably has all you need to make yourself a passable chemical weapon. Mine did, but after posting this I got rid of everything.

Biological - think nasty microorganisms. While rather simplistic (and gross), your snot-rag is an example of this insideous WMD. Countries that dabble in this usually are a lot more inventive with their pathogenic organisms, but it all comes down to this ---> little buggers that are meant to kill you.

 

[McHrozni]

I'm not versed in the distinction between chemical and biological weapons since there's a lot of overlap

Emmm, no. There is no overlap at all. It's an entirely different technology. The only similarity is that both will kill people (and other living stuff, depending on what is used) and not damage the infrastructure.

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

Your closet probably has all you need to make yourself a passable chemical weapon. Mine did, but after posting this I got rid of everything.

Reading some of the warning labels can give you enough information to make a poison gas (which would be very basic and probably non-lethal, unless you used a gas chamber or something).

McHrozni

 

[DC]

This is obviously because a forensic is not the person to decide what goes into a court and what doesn't. That's what the prosecutor or defender are for.



No. Evidence is evidence if it was used in court or if it wasn't. Evidence that was used in court is the only evidence that can establish a legally binding settlement, but evidence that was not (yet) used in court points to a certain event and the guilt of a certain party regardless.

I must say I find your attempts at shifting goalposts rather pathetic.

McHrozni

my point is still, we dont know what this alleged evidence says.
you guys want to use evidence while you have no clue what the evidence is saying or even proofs. maybe they find out it is not evidence against the Venezuelan Government.

one side claims to have evidence, and only a court will find out if that is actualy correct.

your attempt here is pathetic.


someone claims to have evidence and sofar we only know the data on those devices that are claimed to contain evidence was not manipulated, or even more precise, no manipulation has been found. but sure the anti Venezuela crowd jumps to the claim and says, look they have evidence.

thats like a 9/11 truther claiming look Dr. Jones has found evidence for thermite. but you dont know what his "research" actually says.

when it comes to Venezuela you are a real CT.

 

[McHrozni]

my point is still, we dont know what this alleged evidence says.
you guys want to use evidence while you have no clue what the evidence is saying or even proofs. maybe they find out it is not evidence against the Venezuelan Government.

one side claims to have evidence, and only a court will find out if that is actualy correct.

So you only believe evidence if it was established in court? Or am I misunderstanding something here?

someone claims to have evidence and sofar we only know the data on those devices that are claimed to contain evidence was not manipulated, or even more precise, no manipulation has been found. but sure the anti Venezuela crowd jumps to the claim and says, look they have evidence.

You're basically saying that Colombians lied and the information contained within the said unaltered files don't show Venezuela gave $300 million to FARC, then? That no such information is present in the data?

thats like a 9/11 truther claiming look Dr. Jones has found evidence for thermite. but you dont know what his "research" actually says.

Except, of course, that there are legitimate reasons for Colombia to withhold the said information from the general public - not telling FARC (and Venezuela) exactly what they know is a significant advantage to them in any further attempts to seize their funding.

Moreover, a $300 million transfer of funds or resources in that value from a would-be socialist tin pot dictator in an oil rich country to a neighboring socialist guerrillas fighting the government of his neighboring enemy state is a tad more likely than a nonsensical, impossible, overly complex plot to demolish the WTC.

when it comes to Venezuela you are a real CT.

Well, either Colombia seized some computers from FARC, demonstrated it didn't alter any files, and then lied about the information contained in the files; or Chavez supports his ideological allies in a neighboring, hostile state.
You're saying the second option is the CT?

McHrozni

 

[Meed]

Emmm, no. There is no overlap at all. It's an entirely different technology. The only similarity is that both will kill people (and other living stuff, depending on what is used) and not damage the infrastructure.

McHrozni

Well the chemicals produced by a living agent would be covered under the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention and the Chemical Weapons Convention. To say there's no similarity is pretty ridiculous, but whatever it's not an important area of discussion as far as I can tell.

 

[DC]

So you only believe evidence if it was established in court? Or am I misunderstanding something here?



You're basically saying that Colombians lied and the information contained within the said unaltered files don't show Venezuela gave $300 million to FARC, then? That no such information is present in the data?



Except, of course, that there are legitimate reasons for Colombia to withhold the said information from the general public - not telling FARC (and Venezuela) exactly what they know is a significant advantage to them in any further attempts to seize their funding.

Moreover, a $300 million transfer of funds or resources in that value from a would-be socialist tin pot dictator in an oil rich country to a neighboring socialist guerrillas fighting the government of his neighboring enemy state is a tad more likely than a nonsensical, impossible, overly complex plot to demolish the WTC.



Well, either Colombia seized some computers from FARC, demonstrated it didn't alter any files, and then lied about the information contained in the files; or Chavez supports his ideological allies in a neighboring, hostile state.
You're saying the second option is the CT?

McHrozni

you belive blindly that it is evidence, i dont.
i dont know what the alleged evidence says, nor do you.
you just trust the Columbian claims, i want evidence for the claims, and nothing has been presented sofar.

and witholding it for good reasons? sorry, aint buying that one.

and who knows, maybe if the FARC indeed recieved 300m it was for freeing Hostages, maybe this is connected to the former Hostages thanking CHavez for his help. i dont make any claims, i dont say Columbia lies or Venezuela lies. i dont know becuase i have not seen any evidence.

you seem to belive claims without having any evidence.

this is a sceptic forum. this is all about evidence-

 

[WildCat]

and who knows, maybe if the FARC indeed recieved 300m it was for freeing Hostages, maybe this is connected to the former Hostages thanking CHavez for his help.

 

[McHrozni]

Well the chemicals produced by a living agent would be covered under the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention and the Chemical Weapons Convention.

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.

To say there's no similarity is pretty ridiculous, but whatever it's not an important area of discussion as far as I can tell.

Like everywhere else, there are some minor similarities. It's a bit like mistaking a tank for a missile boat.

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

you belive blindly that it is evidence, i dont.
i dont know what the alleged evidence says, nor do you.
you just trust the Columbian claims, i want evidence for the claims, and nothing has been presented sofar.

and witholding it for good reasons? sorry, aint buying that one.

When the evidence goes against your hypothesis, you ignore the evidence, stick to your hypothesis AND call people who disagree with you conspiracy theorists.

Oh my

and who knows, maybe if the FARC indeed recieved 300m it was for freeing Hostages, maybe this is connected to the former Hostages thanking CHavez for his help.

Aha, sure, and Venezuela just gave away $300 million for foreign hostages without telling anyone. Go on, please expand this theory for a bit. Which hostages were paid for, how much were they paid, why didn't Venezuela tell anybody they were paying ransoms, why the ransoms are so large and, most of all, why doesn't paying ransoms for foreign hostages amount to giving support to the terrorists (which FARC are)

I guess I'll have to wait long, won't I?

i dont make any claims, i dont say Columbia lies or Venezuela lies. i dont know becuase i have not seen any evidence.

you seem to belive claims without having any evidence.

this is a sceptic forum. this is all about evidence-

You have an awfully high standard of what constitutes evidence when your hero is the one attacked.

Let's take this claim of yours, from this thread:

well false information led to a coup in 2002.
people thought the Chavistas are shooting the non Chavistas, while they didnt, they shot at snipers. this false Information led alot of people in the military to turn against the government.

Prove to me, to the standard of evidence you're using for claims against Chavez, that 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, etc.

Remember not to use any Venezuelan government sources, since those are clearly biased, and no claims, from anywhere, without solid evidence presented alongside.

McHrozni

 

[DC]

When the evidence goes against your hypothesis, you ignore the evidence, stick to your hypothesis AND call people who disagree with you conspiracy theorists.

Oh my



Aha, sure, and Venezuela just gave away $300 million for foreign hostages without telling anyone. Go on, please expand this theory for a bit. Which hostages were paid for, how much were they paid, why didn't Venezuela tell anybody they were paying ransoms, why the ransoms are so large and, most of all, why doesn't paying ransoms for foreign hostages amount to giving support to the terrorists (which FARC are)

I guess I'll have to wait long, won't I?



You have an awfully high standard of what constitutes evidence when your hero is the one attacked.

Let's take this claim of yours, from this thread:



Prove to me, to the standard of evidence you're using for claims against Chavez, that 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, etc.

Remember not to use any Venezuelan government sources, since those are clearly biased, and no claims, from anywhere, without solid evidence presented alongside.

McHrozni

you make claims of the Venezuelan Government beeing biased.
i didnt make claims in this case.

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.

you guys are making claims without having seen the evidence.

i have made no claim, not against Colombia nor against Venezuela.
i dont know and i cannot know.

you seem to belive something you have no evidence for.

just be patient, when a court finds this evidence is indeed evidence, i will most propebly accept it.

in this case i am not the one making claims, you are, and as the evidence is not avaible to you, your claims are soley based on trust in the Columbian government.

when you have real evidence that we can look at, come back and we can continue this debate.

untill then you better post it in the CT section.