22 Nov 09
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has defended jailed killer "Carlos the Jackal" and several world leaders he says are wrongly considered "bad guys".
In a speech to international socialist politicians, Mr Chavez said "Carlos", a Venezuelan, was not a terrorist but a key "revolutionary fighter".
He is serving a life sentence in France for murders committed in 1975.
Mr Chavez also hailed Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe, Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and the late Ugandan dictator Idi Amin.
'Great nationalist'
Carlos, whose real name is Ilich Ramirez Sanchez, gained international notoriety in the 1970s as a mastermind of deadly bombings, assassinations and hostage-takings.
He was captured in Sudan in 1994 and handed over to France, where he was jailed for killing two French intelligence officers and an alleged informer in 1975.
In his speech late on Friday in Caracas, Mr Chavez said: "I defend him. It doesn't matter to me what they say tomorrow in Europe."
He said he believed Carlos had been unfairly convicted, and called him "one of the great fighters of the Palestine Liberation Organisation".
The Venezuelan leader has previously called Carlos a friend, and is reported to have exchanged letters with him in the past.
In his speech, Mr Chavez also described Presidents Mugabe and Ahmadinejad - who like Mr Chavez are strong critics of the US - as brothers.
About former Ugandan President Idi Amin, Mr Chavez said: "We thought he was a cannibal... I don't know, maybe he was a great nationalist, a patriot."
Idi Amin seized power in 1971. About 300,000 people were killed during his eight-year rule.
Goodness gracious!
Ilich Ramirez Sanchez
Mugabe
Ahmadinejad
Idi Amin
This is quite a list. As a matter of interest - and in the temporary spirit of undisguised relativism - which of these four people - all bizarrely lauded by Chavez - do posters think is the most egregious offender against human decency and which one is the least egregious offender?
22 Nov 09
Originally posted by rwingett:'(
Stupid speech. Even for someone who is cautiously optimistic about Chavez, it was just plain stupid.
THose are tears of joy by the way. I just never thought I would see this day. The left has turned on one of their own.
Just out of curiosity, where was the line in the sand drawn?
22 Nov 09
Originally posted by FMFThat is a tuffy, however, I can tell you who is the least egregious offender against human decency. After watching the Last King of Scotland I can tell you that Idi Amin was simply a misunderstood individual. He appears to have been a torchered sould who was driven by a very bad case of indigestion.
Which of the four people on Chavez's list of "brothers" do you think is the most egregious offender against human decency?
22 Nov 09
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyWhat about the Reagan list: Mobutu, Osama Bin Laden, Soeharto, Saddam Hussein. Support or admiration for which of these was the biggest and least affront to decency?
That is a tuffy, however, I can tell you who is the least egregious offender against human decency.
Your opinion would be interesting because you are nostalgic about Reagan.
22 Nov 09
Originally posted by FMFBelieve it or not, I'd say Ahmadinejad is the most benign of the 4... so far. I am truly afraid that he's trying to acquire nuclear weapons for the purpose of using them, but for now, his abuses have mostly been limited to repression of domestic freedom and blustery rhetoric.
[b]Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has defended jailed killer "Carlos the Jackal" and several world leaders he says are wrongly considered "bad guys".
[quote]In a speech to international socialist politicians, Mr Chavez said "Carlos", a Venezuelan, was not a terrorist but a key "revolutionary fighter".
He is serving a life sentence in France for murde ...[text shortened]... against human decency and which one is the least egregious offender?[/b]
As for the worst, I'd have to go with Idi Amin.
22 Nov 09
Originally posted by FMFI don't think that supporting one person for the narrow goal of helping that person defeat a perceived greater evil is quite the same thing as supporting that person in general or supporting that person's cause.
What about the Reagan list: Mobutu, Osama Bin Laden, Soeharto, Saddam Hussein. Support or admiration for which of these was the biggest and least affront to decency?
Your opinion would be interesting because you are nostalgic about Reagan.
22 Nov 09
Originally posted by sh76So Chavez's daft rhetoric and support for his Egregious Four is of more concern to you than the U.S. material and diplomatic support for the likes of Mobutu and Soeharto - with ghastly death tolls attached? And U.S. propping up of, say Saddam Hussein, was "supporting one person" and not "supporting that person in general or supporting that person's cause"? When you read your post back to yourself, do you not wince just a little?
I don't think that supporting one person for the narrow goal of helping that person defeat a perceived greater evil is quite the same thing as supporting that person in general or supporting that person's cause.
22 Nov 09
Originally posted by FMFI thought it common knowledge that Reagan was ordained as a saint by the Catholic church. He then abandoned any notion of foriegn policy and instead chose to seek to elevate individual leaders based soley upon their personal righteopusness or debase those based upon their wickedness.....or is this news to you?
What about the Reagan list: Mobutu, Osama Bin Laden, Soeharto, Saddam Hussein. Support or admiration for which of these was the biggest and least affront to decency?
Your opinion would be interesting because you are nostalgic about Reagan.