>Wrong - Ted Rall is widely published. I'm reading his column in the local newspaper here for years now. If he's so bogus, he would have been canned from their pages long ago.

Where is he widely published, and what for? Cartoons?

>> For starters, I was well aware, through the US media, that Chavez was democratically elected. Secondly, there have been a million people protesting against Chavez. Those aren't just a few wealthy oil managers.
>
>Deja vu. So have the truckers protested against Allende.

My point remains the same. I knew Chavez was democratically elected.

>It's all too easy to close the plants - the workers will protest (specially if there's someone to organize them and tell them Chavez is to blame), and the cameras will be there.

When you have some information on why the workers protested, rather than your wild speculation, let me know.

>In years of Milosevic I've seen all the possible ways to manipulate what you see on TV. I've seen a rally with 500 people (pro-government) look like there's 5000 people, and a rally with 150,000 people look like there was only 200.

More speculation on your part. When you have a credible news source, please let me know.

>No, he spent the time in Afghanistan.

That doesn't really help him with Venezuela, does it?

>Did I say "I trust this guy, and so should you"? I said "addendum" as in "additional stuff" and "audiantur et altera pars".

I can point you to web pages where people publish unsubstantiated facts, like aliens in Rockwell New Mexico , but I assume you don't want to waste your time.

>And... may I assume you agreed with him on the other two accounts?

Not atl all. I finally found the article at The Guardian he was referring to:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,685531,00.html

where someone, ON THE RECORD, stated that the US did not support a coup. Yet when you read Rall's article, we backed it. Hard to trust this guy if he is going to be so misleading.


>She confessed and got 11 years. I know about that. I could add a few dozen people who should join her, so may the shame be washed off the history of my people.
>
>One of the causes of the trouble we had in the last 15 years is that the cunning class of politicians has brought up the worst scum imaginable, unchained the dogs, and gave them free reign as they deemed needed. It was calculated somewhere that it's enough to have 10% of people who want a war to actually create one. It's our shame that we ("we" as in "all of former Yugoslavia) had more than these 10%, and that the remaining 80% were too confused and gullible, easily manipulated, to do anything against it until it was far too late.

And yet earlier you were arguing against NATO intervention.

>Many of the Bosnian Muslims were saved by their Serb neighbors and vice versa, which is less known. Those 80+% of people managed at least that, if they couldn't reverse the political will of the warmongering minority.

>No comments on this one? It's easy to check. The full article is on http://www.sundayherald.com/30700 if you think Urban Legends website has misquoted it.

Like I have written: when you come up with a credible news source, I will be glad to read it. Writers of spy novels need not apply.