amadeus
Bishop of Bio-Dome
It was an interview done by a FOX News. He was sitting right there and said it.
Hugo Chavez and the CIA?
- Thread starter TheDuckOfFlanders
- Start date
So you are know trying to claim that any American news station must be untrustworthy?!? You do remember that the US news agencies have helped fight their OWN government on numerous occasions (remember Watergate anyone?). Talking as if they are not to be trusted to speak the truth is unworthy of you.
No media organization can be totally relied on by anyone with any common sense but singling out the US like that is uncalled for.
Kentonio
No media organization can be totally relied on by anyone with any common sense but singling out the US like that is uncalled for.
Kentonio
TheDuckOfFlanders
the fish collecter
Yeah ,and i can claim that i saw Bush declaring on a Belgian telivision center that he is a eunuch and that he's secretly in love with Kim il Jung ,but as long i can't prove that i can't use it on this forum as an argument.
dismissed.
TheDuckOfFlanders
the fish collecter
Most of the CEO's of the American media have also interrest's in many oil company's ,if not owning them.Since America is believed to be involved in this matter one can claim that it's news around it is unbiased.The oppinion's i put forward in link's were not Venezuelan ,but rather from other place's around the world that have no connection with this matter at all.
MrSharpe is not even showing the article itself where suposedly Chavez is saying that ,so how can i believe him?
The link's you put forward were all from American source's.The claim's of Chavez connection that were made were from a member of the Venezuelan millitary ,that same millitary that staged the coup in Venezuela.
Claim's have been made for ex. by America that Saddam has connection's with Al-quiada with Iraq to ,but they were all one sided.
One could argue that press from country's not involved in the matter would most probably be more objective than by those who are involved in it.
So you wont accept links from Venezuaela itself or from the largest news-gathering nation in that hemisphere. You will however accept accounts from random places with no proximity or connection to the events. Alrighty then...
Kentonio
Kentonio
TheDuckOfFlanders
the fish collecter
large part's of the venezuelan Media is controlled by the rish elite that is against the rule of Chavez.It's only the national telivision network that is not controlled by the rich elite.
jack merchant
Internationalist
It is certainly necessary to mention that, during the coup last year, when Chávez loyalists recaptured the Miraflores palace and the legally elected government took back power, the commercial tv-stations refused to carry this news, and the population had to be informed by state television. Which took some doing, as it had been taken off the air and sabotaged by the putschists. Given that the outcome of the coup was still very much up in the air, the commercial stations' action might very well have altered the outcome.
If that isn't media bias, I don't know what is.
If that isn't media bias, I don't know what is.
The anti-Americanism here is just unbelieveable. Venezuela is basically one big class warfare explosion between the middle and upper class and the peasant class. That's the big obvious explanation to the whole thing. Basically every peasant supports Chavez, and every non-peasant thinks he's a crook. Any unbiased person would have to believe that this is the reason for the coup and the continued riots that are occuring.
However, that does not stop someone from posting, with no proof whatsoever, pure fantasy speculation that the CIA is behind it all. And when people point out that there is no proof whatsoever for this, they come back with "But there's no proof that it DIDN'T happen. It MIGHT have happened. You don't KNOW it didn't happen this way." Come on. If you want your arguments to be taken seriously you have to come up with something more than "I wish reality were like my fantasy, therefore I now declare my fantasy to be true."
However, that does not stop someone from posting, with no proof whatsoever, pure fantasy speculation that the CIA is behind it all. And when people point out that there is no proof whatsoever for this, they come back with "But there's no proof that it DIDN'T happen. It MIGHT have happened. You don't KNOW it didn't happen this way." Come on. If you want your arguments to be taken seriously you have to come up with something more than "I wish reality were like my fantasy, therefore I now declare my fantasy to be true."
TheDuckOfFlanders
the fish collecter
That is due to the Very nature of the CIA itself.Most of it's action's happen in secrecy ,so you can almost prove nothing that it has ever done.The incident in the Bay of pig's has been officialy denied as being true for years ,maybe decades.And while i can't prove the countless acusiation's i can make about U.S and CIA involvement in South American politic's just due to the fact that officialy the U.S has never declared it to be true ,it may also have some value to point out the various oppinion's there are about those matter's wich may include accusation's to the U.S.
And many people around the world from Europe or other continent's would agree with me that the U.S ,in it's accusation's ,usses a lot of fantasy to.
I said it's strange that almost only American's believe the accusation's the U.S gouverment make's about Saddam link's to Al-quaida.A point that i am trying to make is that it's very strange that about almost any Non-American think different than what the U.S gouverment think's ,in fact a lot of American's also think different than their gouverment.Yet ,all those people are wrong and America'n gouverment is right ,and is allowed to act unilateraly where it think's it is right.This all has more to do with the Iraq crisis ,though it make's a point in the venezuelan matter as to the credibilety of U.S news source's.
here is another paper (or whatever you wana call it)clearly Socialist from origin about U.S imperialism in South America.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/feb2002/colo-f20_prn.shtml
Afcourse some American's will call it "Biased" ,but it gives another view of the spectrum.Consider it as criticism.
I have no idea on the source of this one ,it's about Aerica's interests in cheap oil and their frustration towards venezuela.
http://www.oneworld.org/ips2/sept00/11_58_033.html
Greadius
:yeah:
You missed the point completely. I wasn't comparing Chavez's policy to slave labor, I was saying that "only because a policy has majority support does not automatically make it good policy"
I tried to use an extreme example to illustrate the point in a clear manner, picking a policy that is obviously bad and saying that IF it was majority supported it would still be BAD, although implimenting it would be democratic. It would be both bad and democratic at the same time, which is entirely possible.
This is a nice as I can possibly say this: You don't know anything about America.
Wasn't asking for a clean sheet... the man made himself famous here by taking up anti-American causes; why would you expect anyone here to shed a tear for him being toppled? Winning an election doesn't excuse him from any of it.
So?
You haven't looked hard enough. Perhaps your disdain for the American media would explain why its so hard for you to find it; you don't know where to look.
Really? My conclusion was there are idiots in every country, but I already knew that.
The problem is you have about as much evidence of smoke as of fire. By your own admission.
Everyone has independant opinions.
In my opinion Chavez has polarized the opposition against him so strongly he risks undermining democracy in his own country. Do I get an editorial and a thread?
You ought to know that mudslinging at the Bush administration is a global sport.
Truth in sarcasm.
Source.Who believes America is involved?
Oh yeah, YOU. Well, if YOU determine truth in sources, that would explain why you've provided links to every major leftist garbage site on the net and then sheepishly said "You might think they're biased"
And, most importantly, you've completely forgotten that America has the most diverse and extensive media in the world, and the government does not run the media, and by your own theory the CIA was secretely involved. Essentially, by dismissing ALL American media just because its American, you're making the claim that not only is the speculation true, but the entire American media knows its true and doesn't want to say anything about it.
Its offensively naive, and frankly, scary viewpoint.
Or they're the only one's who bothered investigating the matter properly.
What sources do you think a New Zealand editorialist used?
Been watching too many movies again?
I'm 100% certain that statement proves nothing.
You may want to sit down for this...
the American government represents American viewpoints. Not all people in the world think the same thing about the same issues. And, this may be equally as shocking: this may not be the media's fault.
How do you know? You haven't properly researched it.
Don't you think its a little ridiculous you're making claims about the American media's coverage when you haven't even investigated how or what the media did cover?
Chirst this is starting to piss me off.
ITS NOT A PAPER, ITS A SOCIALIST WEBSITE. THIS ISN'T MEDIA; THIS ISN'T NEWS.
Its not criticism, its crap.
No wonder you have such a perversive negative impression of America; how many anti-Americans did you have to visit to compile this list. Do you visit ANY sites that don't have this extremely prejudice view of EVERYTHING America has EVER done? You'd think in 20 some odd source you'd provide ONE that doesn't place the value of its existance in undermining America... you know, something that is NOT an editorial... a straight news source perhaps?
If you EVER want your opinions to be taken seriously you have to consume information with more criticism of its validity instead of assuming the best because you like what it says. No matter how many times you repeat a lie it doesn't make it true. If you had questions about the TRUTH in these stories, instead of searching for confirmation you ought to have searched for cricism, instead of coming here with a list of the mutual agreement society repeating the same speculation and then willinginly defend it as the truth.
Please, for your own intellectual health, learn how to scrutinize your sources more carefully.
Concerning links between Iraq and al-qaeda, at least the US tries to show proof of links. This one the other hand is completely baseless. CIA involvement in the Bay of Pigs has actual proof to back it up. Here there is no proof whatsoever. And it is especially distressing that someone would think this considering that there is a completely obvious answer to why this is happening in Venezuela, yet that is completely ignored in favor of baseless accusations.
Every single member of the UN is voting unilaterally in its own interests. Do you really believe that France is voting against US military intervention because it cares about the world? I guess it is just coincidence that France has massive oil deals with Iraq and that France has been trying to release Iraq from its requirement to disarm since the 1990s.
The only reason the US is singled out for unilateral action is because it is the only nation in the world that has the ability to act unilaterally. However, seeing as it has numerous allies, even the claim that the US is acting unilaterally is a lie.
Every single member of the UN is voting unilaterally in its own interests. Do you really believe that France is voting against US military intervention because it cares about the world? I guess it is just coincidence that France has massive oil deals with Iraq and that France has been trying to release Iraq from its requirement to disarm since the 1990s.
The only reason the US is singled out for unilateral action is because it is the only nation in the world that has the ability to act unilaterally. However, seeing as it has numerous allies, even the claim that the US is acting unilaterally is a lie.
Similar threads
