Can Chavez get any more mental?

[mistermack]

If I'm wrong, correct me. I believe, Coito, that you have argued vehemently against Bushy Jr being called a war criminal. You love amnesty so much, I guess you must have changed your opinion.

http://www.amnesty.org/en/node/19467

US must begin criminal investigation of torture following Bush admission

Exactly. That's what i meant by double standards.
And Coito, of course people make attempts to remove the wikipedia article.
Because vested interests don't like the truth being out there.
They'd rather you got your info from shite like fox news.

[Coito ergo sum]

If I'm wrong, correct me. I believe, Coito, that you have argued vehemently against Bushy Jr being called a war criminal.

Yes, because he hasn't committed a war crime and/or because nobody has articulated a reasonable basis for accusing Bush of having committed a war crime. I also don't think Chavez is a war criminal.

You love amnesty so much, I guess you must have changed your opinion.

http://www.amnesty.org/en/node/19467

US must begin criminal investigation of torture following Bush admission

Why would I have to change my opinion? We're not talking about a dispute over the facts. I don't dispute Amnesty's "facts" - that Bush wrote what he wrote in his memoirs - I do dispute that the conclusion they draw from it. They see the memoir as justifying an investigation of the President for alleged torture. I disagree with that, because I disagree with Amnesty's conclusion that if what Bush wrote in his memoir it would be cause for prosecution. That's based on my research on the definitions of torture under international law - what constitutes torture - and what has resulted i torture convictions and acquittals in previous cases before the European Commisssion on Human Rights and the InterAmerican Human RightsCommission.

I "love" amnesty international? That's a silly statement, sandinista.

If anything, Amnesty International is a left leaning organization. Who do you think joins Amnesty? Right wingers?

It's precisely Amnesty's position in calling for an investigation of Bush that makes Amnesty's report about Chavez even stronger. Amnesty's predisposition, as a left leaning organization, would be in favor of Chavez, not against him, since Chavez is associated strongly with the left. And, Amnesty's report is full of facts, with sources, for the various acts committed by Chavez. Just read the report.

[sandinista]

now I'm convinced Coito doesn't really believe what he writes

[Coito ergo sum]

If I'm wrong, correct me. I believe, Coito, that you have argued vehemently against Bushy Jr being called a war criminal. You love amnesty so much, I guess you must have changed your opinion.

http://www.amnesty.org/en/node/19467

US must begin criminal investigation of torture following Bush admission

Exactly. That's what i meant by double standards.

I've not espoused a double standard.

It's just Amnesty International, although Amnesty International is generally considered a left-leaning organization. If they were a right leaning organization, one would expect them to be more overtly anti-Chavez. The fact that it comes from Amnesty is more persuasive for that reason. But, recall - there was also Human Rights Watch, and Reporters Without Borders - among several other groups that I listed.

All of them "have it in" for Chavez, too? Just part of the forces of evil arrayed against him, as he claims?

And Coito, of course people make attempts to remove the wikipedia article.
Because vested interests don't like the truth being out there.
They'd rather you got your info from shite like fox news.

And, of course, of all the points demonstrating the unreliability of the article you claim as your "unbiased source", you pick that one single point and dismiss the entirety of the issues. Once again....unbiased, indeed.

[Coito ergo sum]

now I'm convinced Coito doesn't really believe what he writes

I'm convinced that you don't read what you post.

For you to suggest that anyone else is biased or has a double-standard is laughable.

[mistermack]

now I'm convinced Coito doesn't really believe what he writes

Yeh, I am now. And you couldn't give a better example of what I meant by double standards than this :

It's precisely Amnesty's position in calling for an investigation of Bush that makes Amnesty's report about Chavez even stronger.

[Coito ergo sum]

He doesn't believe the stuff he writes. Just a sucker for arguing. Devils advocate if you will.

Yeh, I think you're right. There's so much of it, I'm beginning to wonder if he even READS what he writes. Seems to be an awful lot of copy and paste. Coito, quantity does not equal quality.
.

Too much for you to actually read the evidence?

Hey - if you haven't even read the HRW report on Venezuela, then for you to even claim you have an informed opinion on the topic is ridiculous. What you have is a political position - and your position on the issue of Chavez and his political oppression in Venezuela is based on that, not the facts.

[mistermack]

Hey - if you haven't even read the HRW report on Venezuela, then for you to even claim you have an informed opinion on the topic is ridiculous. What you have is a political position - and your position on the issue of Chavez and his political oppression in Venezuela is based on that, not the facts.

Ok, so if you're quoting HRW on Chavez, then you'll be quoting them on exraordinary rendition by the US, I'm sure, unless you have double standards.
.

[Coito ergo sum]

It's precisely Amnesty's position in calling for an investigation of Bush that makes Amnesty's report about Chavez even stronger.

Do you really not get the fact that Amnesty is a left-leaning group, and therefore would be expected to be more pro- than anti-Chavez?

[Coito ergo sum]

Hey - if you haven't even read the HRW report on Venezuela, then for you to even claim you have an informed opinion on the topic is ridiculous. What you have is a political position - and your position on the issue of Chavez and his political oppression in Venezuela is based on that, not the facts.

Ok, so if you're quoting HRW on Chavez, then you'll be quoting them on exraordinary rendition by the US, I'm sure, unless you have double standards.
.

W

Are you saying that because you don't agree with HRW about Chavez, that you'd have a double-standard if you cite them in relation to allegations about the US? Or, do you believe both?

[sandinista]

now I'm convinced Coito doesn't really believe what he writes

Yeh, I am now. And you couldn't give a better example of what I meant by double standards than this :

It's precisely Amnesty's position in calling for an investigation of Bush that makes Amnesty's report about Chavez even stronger.

amazing isn't it.

[mistermack]

Are you saying that because you don't agree with HRW about Chavez, that you'd have a double-standard if you cite them in relation to allegations about the US? Or, do you believe both?

I'm saying that your selective quote-mining is silly and pointless.
You proudly advance what amnesty says, or HRW, whoever they are, as some kind of proof of your point. And yet you reject whatever they say that doesn't suit you.
Can'y you see that this makes your use of these quotes ridiculous?
I'm sure you can. But you won't.
.

[sandinista]

Are you saying that because you don't agree with HRW about Chavez, that you'd have a double-standard if you cite them in relation to allegations about the US? Or, do you believe both?

I'm saying that your selective quote-mining is silly and pointless.
You proudly advance what amnesty says, or HRW, whoever they are, as some kind of proof of your point. And yet you reject whatever they say that doesn't suit you.
Can'y you see that this makes your use of these quotes ridiculous?
I'm sure you can. But you won't.
.

It's pretty much standard now for "liberal democratic" ideologues. What the west (US) does is right, what "others" do is wrong (mostly non whites).

[Coito ergo sum]

Are you saying that because you don't agree with HRW about Chavez, that you'd have a double-standard if you cite them in relation to allegations about the US? Or, do you believe both?

I'm saying that your selective quote-mining is silly and pointless.
You proudly advance what amnesty says, or HRW, whoever they are, as some kind of proof of your point. And yet you reject whatever they say that doesn't suit you.
Can'y you see that this makes your use of these quotes ridiculous?
I'm sure you can. But you won't.
.

Do you even know what quote-mining is? It does not appear so...unless you're claiming that HRW really praised Chavez, but I made their quotes falsely seem as if they were against Chavez.

YOU ARE WRONG! I did NOT reject "whatever they said that doesn't suit" me. What is it that you think I've "rejected?"

The 236 page report on Venezuela was written by Human Rights Watch. You said that Human Rights Watch said something about the US and extraordinary rendition. I don't dispute that the US engaged in extraordinary rendition, and still does under the current President (who reaffirmed the Bush policy of rendition as one of his first few acts in power). What is it that you're on about?

What is it that you think I've "rejected?"

Are you saying, anyway, that if you reject the HRW report on Venezuela that it makes it ridiculous to rely on HRW on any other issue? Is that what you're saying? Can you answer a direct question - yes or no? If your answer is yes, then I take it you reject HRW's position on the United States.....? Do you?

Surely, by now, you can see how specious your argument is.

[mistermack]

Coito, I'm not the one who copies and pastes acres of text to bolster my points.
I LINKED one article in wikipedia, I didn't select the bits that I favoured and ignore the rest.
I just don't see the point in what you are saying. So the HRW report has 236 pages. Is that meant to impress? HRW do a report on Venezuela. What do you expect them to write? If they did a report on Britain, they would criticise. Or USA, or China, or practically any country in the world. That's what they do. You quoting them as being critical is meaningless.
If you've got an opinion, I'm happy to read it. But all this perpetual quoting is crap. I can read the media myself. I appreciate the odd relevant link, but huge swathes of other peoples quotes, to back up your own opinion, is over the top.

And of course rendition is widely known about. That's not the point. Should it happen? Do you think it's right? Does it breach human rights? That's the point. ( that you're dodging ).
.