Somehow the fact that you are supporting Chavez and his murdering, kidnapping, drug trafficking friends doesn't suprise me in the least MrBeast.

And your sleezy personal attack on him doesn't surprise me in the least. You call his character into question simply because he has a different point of view that differs from your own.

But I'm not surprised. After reading through a number of your past posts, it seems to be your "modus operandi". You basically "run down" posters by taking personal "pot shots" at them in lieu of having anything substantial to say...

You can't support your own point of view so you resort to denigrating others..

Some historical examples of US supported terrorism
 

This is not the "be all, end all" of listings. But one can start here and research the rest:

Guatemala:
For the CIA backing of terrorism in Guatemala, see congressman Bill Delahunt's press release in 1999(1) or the Guatemala Human Rights Commission/USA Annual Report 1997 - 1998(2).
Estimated civilian deaths: over 200,000 people.


Chile:

"The violent overthrow of the democratically-elected Popular Unity government of Salvador Allende changed the course of the country ... Revelations that President Richard Nixon had ordered the CIA to 'make the economy scream' in Chile to 'prevent Allende from coming to power or to unseat him,' prompted a major scandal in the mid-1970s, and a major investigation by the U.S. Senate." ...
An unknown quantity of documents remain lost or classified, but those that have been released confirm efforts to 'destabilize' Chile economically. Chile has been suffering ever since."(3)

Occupied Palestinian territories:
The American government has paid Israel almost one hundred billion dollars over the years. Part of that money is used for occupying Palestinian land, in opposition to international law, and to kill dissenters. For details of American support and for the best known atrocity, see the Sabra and Shatila page. For the latest news, see The Palestine Chronicle. (Why not add up the number of Israelis killed and compare them to the number of Palestinians killed? Choose any year you like.) For how the west reports the news, see Palestine Media Watch. The parallels with South African Apartheid are striking, except in how it is reported.

"What if we had supported the apartheid regime of South Africa against the majority black population? What if we had lauded the South African white leadership as 'hard-line warriors' rather than racists? What if we had explained the shooting of 56 black protesters at Sharpeville as an understandable 'security crackdown' by the South African police. And described black children shot by the police as an act of 'child sacrifice' by their parents? What if we had called upon the 'terrorist' ANC leadership to 'control their own people'.
"Almost every day that is exactly the way we are playing the Israeli-Palestinian war. No matter how many youths are shot dead by the Israelis, no matter how many murders - by either side - and no matter how bloody the reputation of the Israeli Prime Minister, we are reporting this terrible conflict as if we supported the South African whites against the blacks. No, Israel is not South Africa (though it happily supported the apartheid regime) and no, the Palestinians are not the blacks of the shanty towns. But there's not much difference between Gaza and the black slums of Johannesburg; and there's not much difference between the tactics of the Israeli army in the occupied territories and that of the South African police. The apartheid regime had death squads, just as Israel has today. Yet even they did not use helicopter gunships and missiles."(4)

Estimated civilian deaths: 100,000 Palestinian people.


Panama
1980s

"Systematically, the Contras have been assassinating religious workers, teachers, health workers, elected officials, government administrators. Remember the 'Assassination Manual' that surfaced in 1984? It caused such a stir that President Reagan had to address it himself in the presidential debates with Walter Mondale. They use terror to traumatize society so that it cannot function.
...
[after describing various atrocities - the kind of thing that makes Osama Bin Laden seem kind and gentle by comparison:] "These are the activities done by the Contras. The Contras are the people President Reagan called 'freedom fighters.' He said: 'They are the moral equivalent of our founding fathers.'"
"(7)

Estimated civilian deaths: over 13,000 people.


Vietnam
1945-1974
This is "The Big One." What America did in south-east Asia shocked all levels of American society - right up to the President:

"President Ford was reacting to Senate and House committee reports both concluding that the CIA had become a 'rogue elephant' crushing foreign citizens under foot in its bid to win the Cold War. For instance, more than 20,000 Vietnamese were killed during the CIA-guided Operation Phoenix intended to weed out communist 'agents' from South Vietnam." (BBC report, "CIA's licence to kill" Tuesday, 23 October, 2001)

Testimony before congress indicates that these "agents" included women and children.

"At one point Congressman Ogden Reid pulled out a list signed by a CIA officer that named VC cadre rounded up in a particular action in 1967. 'It is of some interest that on this list, 33 of the 61 names were women and some persons were as young as 11 and 12,' noted Reid." (8)

"Between 1967 to 1973 an estimated 40,000 Vietnamese were killed by CIA-sponsored "counterterror" and "hunter-killer" teams, and hundreds of thousands were sent to secret interrogation centers."(8) It was an ugly time.(9) In the end the U.S. public decided that the U.S. was wrong to start this war, and the war was finally ended.
Estimated total civilian deaths: 2,500,000 - 3,500,000 people.

No, I call his character into question because he attempts to justify murdering, kidnapping and drug trafficking because it's by a group he supports.

Friend, trying to make an argument based on a blatant falsehood, like for instance moving the start of the Iraq war forward an entire year in order to badmouth a pol you don't like deserves being "run down". What are we supposed to do? Accept your malarkey at face value and say nothing? Allow you to blow such a huge and telling "mistake" off by just saying "my bad" before continuing your attack?

Don't be such a bitter Betty. :roll:

How about - Don't make me laugh! This is supposed to be serious! :D :rotfl:

-S

First, I'm not your friend. Nor would I care to be. My friends treat each other with courtesy and respect each others opinions.

Secondly, invoking the mistake I made (and I willingly acknowledged) and applying it here has no relevance and is simply another ploy to sidestep the issue IMO.

So instead of attempting to divert attention towards me, why don't you and subman1 seeing as he's graced us with his presense, refute me? C'mon, let's see some of that intellectual "superiority" you obviously believe you both possess...

So, here's the question so that were all on the same playing field:

"It's alright for America to sponsor "terrorist groups" but not ok for anyone else?"

Solution: Anyone buying cocaine is funding terror. Supporting terror groups is now a Federal offense and those supporting terror groups financially should be put up against a wall and shot.

That'll fix the problem. :smug:

Of course it's not ok, but then again i'm not the one who attempted to make the moral equivalency either.

So now that i've answered your question how about answering mine?

Oh and BTW, pot, kettle, black... :roll:

The President is simply calling a spade a spade.

Hugo is attempting to replace Castro as the purveyor of 'revolutionary' rhetoric and misery in the region.

I'm sure Che would be proud.

Whatever. I wouldn't mind the Columbians bloodying up Chavez's nose, he deserves it from supporting these murderous thugs.

The U.S. is 'just as bad' argument follows is 5...4...3...2... :-?

I don't think mrbeast is actually chucking his flag behind Chavez and FARC. Instead he's making the very relevant point that it's more than a little disingenous for a US president to complain about terrorist sponsorship in Latin/South America.

Are you referring to this? (as it's the only question I see you posing in this thread)
Just as much their right as the US has shown in its support of "terrorists", oops! Sorry. "freedom fighters" outside the US in other sovereign nations.

Just as it is for Mr. Chavez to support these murderous thugs all the while calling our President the world's biggest terrorist.

All of this is besides the point.

As I watch the dollar weaken, our friends lambast us all over the world, and OPEC strangle us, in my weaker moments I consider starting a new local branch of the America First committee, but then I remember the last time we pulled out of the world...

Agreed. I just don't agree with August's seemingly black/white interpretation.

I think it's worth mentioning. Colombia's government isn't snow-white, but there seems to be a "good corruption" and a "bad corruption" as far as Bush is concerned.
Add good/bad territorial incursions to the mix.

The demand for the dollar was always precarious. You can't run such trade deficits and expect the currency to remain stable. As usual, loose credit created an illusion. The dollar isn't so much falling as correcting.
I don't believe the US is distinguishing itself in the international sphere right now. Not every criticism is justified, naturally, but neither can it be rubbed away as anti-Americanism.
Opec? Criticising capitalists for capitalising is a bit rich. Cheap oil is over. The only reductions we'll see is the instability premium falling, the general trend will be upwards.

So you justify attacks on country A because country B has a history of similar actions? Do you even read what you write?

It's black and white because there is absolutely nothing good about a group that deliberately targets innocent people as FARC has done for the last 40 years.

Bombings, murder, mortar attacks, narcotrafficking, kidnapping, extortion, hijacking. Are these the actions of any legitimate opposition group?

Take one example: In March 1999, the FARC executed three US Indian rights activists on Venezuelan territory after it kidnapped them in Colombia. Where is the shade of grey argument in that?

Just for the record August, I'm not a supporter of FARC. ;)

If the USA intervenes one more country in this decade they will be f_cked. Atm the world is holding still because they are waiting for the new government. I have not much more to say to this.

Take this and substitute 'The Nicaraguan Contras' for FARC.

Nobody's argued that FARC are doing good :-?.

You miss my point. Your response to mrbeast was personal and nasty, displaying a "with us or against us" mentality. That's where my black/white comment comes from.
Maybe I misunderstand you.