Patterico's Pontifications

10/23/2006

Clint Taylor Was Right About the Hezbollah Presence in Venezuela

Filed under: General,Terrorism — Patterico @ 5:45 pm



Pipe bombs found outside the U.S. embassy in Venezuela may be connected with Hezbollah, potentially corroborating Clint Taylor’s earlier reports of that terror group’s Latin American operations.

Allah at Hot Air notes that today is the 23rd anniversary of the Beirut barracks bombing. Coincidence??

A hearty Patterico “huzzah!” to the first commenter who locates a DU or Kos poster/commenter arguing that this is merely part of Bush’s grand plan to invade every country in the world with oil.

UPDATE 7:38 p.m.: That didn’t take long. Kudos to LibraryLady, who has located the following DU thread, which connects the detention of the bombmaker with Bushitler plans to invade Venezuela.

51 Responses to “Clint Taylor Was Right About the Hezbollah Presence in Venezuela”

  1. Thats a nice inverted pyramid structure. In your headline at the top, it says ‘was right.’ Later it becomes ‘may be connected … potentially corroborate’

    [When I did the post, I thought about making the headline more equivocal, but I think it’s accurate. He *is* right, based on everything I know. This is just some of the evidence. — P]

    actus (10527e)

  2. Can you say, “Axis of Evil”?

    Crank (3fed2a)

  3. Patterico,

    Maybe you remember seeing a post where I told someone I would never call for banning actus… that didn’t mean I would protest it either. Just wanted to be clear. 😉

    Stashiu3 (404f9e)

  4. This is just some of the evidence. —

    Like I said, very good inverted pyramid.

    actus (10527e)

  5. “… I would never call for banning actus… that didn’t mean I would protest it either …”

    I would protest it. He’s never used inappropriate language and his arguments stand or fall on their own merits. If he hijacks threads, and he does, it’s because other commenters choose to make his comment the subject of the thread. As here.

    nk (2ab789)

  6. As for visiting DU or Kos, “thanks but no thanks” as our host posted previously. On the subject, I think that any pipe-bomb planters who found themselves arrested by the Venezuelan police would be praying to be water-boarded at Gitmo within minutes into a Venezuelan police “interrogation”. Dictators don’t like “cowboys”. They demand and impose a monopoly on the violence in their realms.

    nk (2ab789)

  7. #5 nk

    That was a tongue-in-cheek reference to actus hijacking the thread from the first post. I’m sorry if it was taken any other way. Thanks.

    Stashiu3 (404f9e)

  8. Q: Do you think that a legal program by the United States Government, integral to National Security issues relating to the Global War on Terror, should be published despite the knowledge that it damages our ability to collect needed information?

    Actus: Certainly. It implicates EU privacy law. Are the Europeans not entitled to their laws? They’re also concerned about the war on terror too.

    Actus, seeing as you are on record as putting EU interests above American interests, why would it be any difference here? Why should I believe you wouldn’t put Hezbollah’s intersts above American interests?

    EFG (aa5d0a)

  9. No problem, Stashiu3, but what do you think of my idea that Hugo Chavez is likely to come down like a ton of rocks on any terrorists operating in his territory even if the terrorists’ target is the U.S..

    nk (2ab789)

  10. seeing as you are on record as putting EU interests above American interests

    Who are you people? how many times do I have to say that the EU interest is the same? in how many threads?

    Why should I believe you wouldn’t put Hezbollah’s intersts above American interests?

    For one, Hizbollah and the US have quite different interests in invetigating terrorist financing.

    what do you think of my idea that Hugo Chavez is likely to come down like a ton of rocks on any terrorists operating in his territory even if the terrorists’ target is the U.S..

    I can’t think of anything Chavez would want more than to get invaded.

    actus (10527e)

  11. nk, usually, I would say that normally the soverign head of a nation will crack down on terrorism in their nation, even if it is against another countries interests.

    But I think Hugo has gone past what passes for normal.

    Just my two cents.

    EFG (aa5d0a)

  12. actus:

    how many times do I have to say that the EU interest is the same?

    You can say it as many times as you want. And every time you do, it will be just as irrelevant.

    You were asked the following question:

    Q: Do you think that a legal program by the United States Government, integral to National Security issues relating to the Global War on Terror, should be published despite the knowledge that it damages our ability to collect needed information?

    Your answer:

    Certainly.

    EFG (aa5d0a)

  13. actus:

    how many times do I have to say that the EU interest is the same?

    And when they aren’t the same, you put the EU’s interest above American interests.

    Is Hezbollah the same for you?

    EFG (aa5d0a)

  14. Actually, actus, I was going towards that 1) Hugo Chavez is a Communist (meaning ideologically atheist) and 2) Venezuela is a Catholic country, so that he would see no commonality of long-term interest with Shiite snake-charmers, but your point that he would not be an accomplice to an act of war against the United States is also valid. Unless he’s nuts.

    nk (2ab789)

  15. Your answer:

    Certainly.

    You’re bad at lying. You quoted the whole thing the first time.

    And when they aren’t the same, you put the EU’s interest above American interests.

    What? Where do you get that from?

    Is Hezbollah the same for you?

    What do you think? I like the EU’s privacy law. The EU’s approach to drugs and gay marriage. What sort of extrapolation can you make from that to hezbollah? Put it all together. Don’t let your wish to pick and choose one word overcome you. You’re strong. Do it.

    actus (10527e)

  16. EFG, thanks. See my comment #14. So is Hugo Chavez that nuts? The snake-charmers hate communists just as much as they hate Christians. And Venezuela is both communist and Christian.

    nk (2ab789)

  17. #9 nk

    I completely agree and don’t think due process would be a huge concern for him. Unless they have his backing, I believe he would rightly consider that a challenge to his sovereignty. And I don’t think they have his backing, so “ton of rocks” is dead-on accurate.

    Stashiu3 (404f9e)

  18. Well, we’re getting close at DU:

    DRoseDARs (1000+ posts) Mon Oct-23-06 01:29 PM
    Response to Original message
    1. Yeah, how’s the case against the Miami terrorists going?
    Or the case against the iPod bombers, for that matter?

    My Bullshit-o-Meter is pinging…

    stepnw1f (1000+ posts) Mon Oct-23-06 02:04 PM
    Response to Reply #3
    4. Iran, Venezuala, Iran, Venezuala, Iran, Venezuala
    repeat until you hate both countries enough so der Bushler can invade another country…. “All together now….”

    Iran, Venezuala, Iran, Venezuala, Iran, Venezuala, Iran, Venezuala, Iran, Venezuala, Iran, Venezuala, Iran, Venezuala, Iran,

    LibraryLady (f2d54f)

  19. nk, I don’t know if Hugo is that crazy, but I suspect he is. Hugo as a communist shouldn’t be cozying up with a bunch of Islamic theocrats in Iran, but he is doing that.

    Someone on the internet said that Hugo Chavez had no rational foreign policy at all except to provoke the U.S. Which seems to be pretty much accurate.

    So yeah, terrorist acting against the U.S. in his territory seems like something that he might turn a blind eye to.

    EFG (aa5d0a)

  20. EFG: “Is Hezbollah the same for you?”

    Actus: “What do you think?”

    With anyone else on this thread, I would know what they mean by this. But since you “certainly” put EU interests above US interests, in your case, the issue is in doubt.

    So if you could, please clairfy if you would put Hezbollah’s interests above US interests.

    EFG (aa5d0a)

  21. the issue is in doubt.

    Is it really in doubt? I said I like the EU’s privacy laws, approach to drugs, and tolerance of homosexual rights. Are you really still in doubt about my feelings on hezbollah?

    actus (10527e)

  22. Yes I am.

    EFG (aa5d0a)

  23. #20 EFG

    Someone on the internet said that Hugo Chavez had no rational foreign policy at all except to provoke the U.S. Which seems to be pretty much accurate.

    I can’t argue that, but remembering that this would be domestic policy, he has to keep tight control within his borders. It’s the only way he can remain in power, no matter how tempted he might be to turn a blind eye. Just my opinion, I could definitely be wrong and he might end up asking them to step forward for a medal presentation. Nothing would really surprise me.

    Stashiu3 (404f9e)

  24. But since you “certainly” put EU interests above US interests

    Also, if you just stop lying to yourself about this, your doubts might go away too.

    actus (10527e)

  25. Yes I am.

    You really can’t figure it out? You really can’t add up those three things and answer whether i’m in favor of hezbollah? What do you think hezbollah has to say about htose 3 things? You think I agree with their answer?

    actus (10527e)

  26. actus:

    Are you really still in doubt about my feelings on hezbollah?

    Yes I am.

    How do you feel about Hezbollah?

    EFG (aa5d0a)

  27. Hmmm,
    The nazis decamped to argentina,and hizb’allah decamps to Venezula….nope no trend there…
    Nazis flew rocket bombs into cities in the middle of the night, hizb’allah flew rockets bombs into cities in the middle of the night…hmmm no trend there….Nazi wanted to have the final solution to the Jews, hizb’allah doesn’t recognise jews….nope not there either…

    Oh puh-leeze

    paul from fl (967602)

  28. Ignore actus. He’s been pinned down once, it won’t happen again anytime soon.

    Stashiu3 (404f9e)

  29. How do you feel about Hezbollah?

    You’re not so dumb that you really can’t figure out I am against them because they are going to be against things I like?

    actus (10527e)

  30. EFG:But since you “certainly” put EU interests above US interests

    Actus: Also, if you just stop lying to yourself about this, your doubts might go away too.

    Lying about what? Your putting EU interests above US interests?

    EFG (aa5d0a)

  31. Lying about what?

    The part where I said ‘the same’ and you read ‘above.’

    actus (10527e)

  32. I think you’re right, Stashiu3. I suppose there is too much nuance to the Hezbollah issue to nail down.

    Although I am surprised actus would turn to insulting me and calling me “dumb”.

    EFG (aa5d0a)

  33. The whole “lying” accusation seems kinda surprising too, seeing as how those are his words, not mine.

    EFG (aa5d0a)

  34. Although I am surprised actus would turn to insulting me and calling me “dumb”.

    I’m just so fascinated that you haven’t realized yet that I against them because they are going to be against things I like. How come you don’t realize this? How come you can’t think of it? I mean, it could be dumb. But I don’t really think you’re THAT dumb. I asked incredulously if you were. I think you’re just obstinate.

    Will me saying it the second time work?

    actus (10527e)

  35. his words, not mine.

    “Above” is your word. “the same” is mine

    actus (10527e)

  36. #33 EFG

    He clearly doesn’t want anyone to notice that hurting US interests was inherent in the question. The choice was (paraphrasing) publish and help the EU, even if it hurt the US… or, don’t publish because it would hurt the US. He said publish.

    Ignore him, the point is clear and he’ll never admit it again. Just sayin’

    Stashiu3 (404f9e)

  37. The choice was (paraphrasing) publish and help the EU, even if it hurt the US… or, don’t publish because it would hurt the US. He said publish.

    Then I never answered your question, because I don’t agree that publication helps the EU. I think it hurts their interests in fighting terror to the same extent it hurts US interests.

    actus (10527e)

  38. I hear you Stashiu3.

    I wonder if actus is trying so hard to avoid facing up to what he said because he is ashamed of himself, or because he is just arguing in bad faith.

    EFG (aa5d0a)

  39. arguing in bad faith.

    Dude. How many times did I say it? Did you even read what I said on like #35.

    actus (10527e)

  40. #39 EFG

    I would have to say bad faith as he clearly answered here. It’s funny how when you use obfuscation every time you have a conversation, it eventually comes back to bite you. I’m convinced, ignore actus.

    Stashiu3 (404f9e)

  41. It’s funny how when you use obfuscation every time you have a conversation, it eventually comes back to bite you

    Its really interesting that my attempt to be accurate. To state my meaning in paragraphs, rather than a single word which does not capture my meaning, is termed ‘obfuscation.’ So much for ‘bad faith.’

    actus (10527e)

  42. actus
    As a casual observer, I can’t tell what you believe.
    Try plain simple English. The silly back and forth makes reading blog comments so tedious.
    If you can’t state your opinion or answer questions in a clear, simple paragraph….don’t.
    You may get some wierd personal satisfaction, but you’ve added nothing to general knowledge and understanding.

    Robin (0523b4)

  43. The problem is that you asked Actus to put American interests ahead of some other interests (like the EU). Actus is one of those oh-so-modern libs that think they are globalists, therefore they see no inconsistency in saying “certainly” in answer to a question about America vs. EU interests. In his head, they are the same, but even if they aren’t (which was your question) it is ok because, really, everybody hates the terrorists. See?

    sharon (dfeb10)

  44. If you can’t state your opinion or answer questions in a clear, simple paragraph

    But people didn’t like that so they went and only read one word of it.

    Actus is one of those oh-so-modern libs that think they are globalists, therefore they see no inconsistency in saying “certainly” in answer to a question about America vs. EU interests.

    If there’s anything that makes me a globalist its that i think we have the same interest as the EU. Its not that globalist to pick one over the other. It wouldn’t be globalist to pick the US over the EU, and it wouldn’t be globalist to pick the EU over the US. Its globalist to say they’re the same.

    actus (10527e)

  45. These are the same people who tried to whip up the fear of jihad in america when a muslim man ran over some people near a synagogue. That was the new wave of islamic terrorist attacks on soft targets. Now we have jihad in latin america cause one Venezuelan guy got caught with some pipe bombs that any Tom, Dick or Harry could make and papers in support of Hezbolah. The desperation to find enemies everywhere in order to justify the move to the right in america continues to increase. Don’t look under your kitchen sink, there may be a jihad going on but in case you find one, rush to report to Malkin as the cause must be served.

    I know, I know. The terrorists are going to cut off my head unless I am willing to surrender all my civil liberties to the greater good of being kept safe. The world is a dangerous place. Maybe you should all just stay home and lock your doors till Bush kills every last muslim. Course by then it will be the latino menace or the european pansy raiders, or the long haired marijuana smokers. The danger never ends. The founding fathers were fools to have ever conceived of a bill of rights. Didn’t they know that you don’t have any rights if you’re dead?

    Paul (66bd02)

  46. #46 Paul

    Wow, I thought that was a parody of an ignorant lefty rant… then I saw who wrote it. Tell me, which parts are sarcasm? It’s hard to tell at times. How about:

    The terrorists are going to cut off my head unless I am willing to surrender all my civil liberties to the greater good of being kept safe.

    Nobody has asked you to give up all your civil liberties, or tried to take them away, depending on how paranoid you actually are. Do you not believe terrorists who say they will kill you unless you submit?

    How about:

    The world is a dangerous place.

    You apparently aren’t aware of it, or that we can take steps to make it safer.

    And:

    Course by then it will be the latino menace or the european pansy raiders, or the long haired marijuana smokers.

    Ah, the old “Republicans want to do away with everyone different than themselves (meaning rich, old, white guys who smoke cigars)” You’re really not going to convince people that your position is correct when you label them all with a stereotype that has never been accurate, tho oft repeated.

    Last, but certainly not least:

    Didn’t they know that you don’t have any rights if you’re dead?

    I’m sure they did, that why they wrote the Bill of Rights.

    Stashiu3 (404f9e)

  47. Stashiu:

    One of the ironies I consistently notice is that the Left’s arguments about “whipping up fear” apply, word-for-word, to the world of 9-10.

    Think about it: What exactly had Mohammed Atta and the boys done prior to whipping out the box-cutters that was illegal? Indeed, on 9-11, even carrying box-cutters onto the planes was perfectly legal.

    So, arresting Mohammed Atta and company (on what charges, one wonders?) would’ve been whipping up fear over a “threat” posed by “the other.” It would’ve been blatant racism against brown people, it would’ve been unwarranted fear of Muslims.

    But then, of course, it’s the same Left that regularly inveighs against Dubya and company for not paying attention to the threat, for ignoring the “plan” that Richard Clarke says didn’t exist, for not paying more attention to the fact that KSM had earlier talked about flying planes into buildings (funny, he also apparently chopped the head off Danny Pearl—wonder if that strikes Paul as ironic).

    So, in the world of the Left, the answer must always be Lockean, as in Goldi-. That is, it must be “just right,” neither excessive (worrying that Muslims driving SUVs into crowds, in one case to “punish the government of the United States for [its] actions around the world” is apparently excessive) nor insufficient (although I suspect that depends on your definition of insufficient).

    Thus, one is left to wonder: how does one counter terrorism without “whipping up fear”? And does it extend beyond “voting Democrat” and “opposing Bush”?

    Lurking Observer (ea88e8)

  48. What exactly had Mohammed Atta and the boys done prior to whipping out the box-cutters that was illegal?

    Conspiracy to hijack, murder and terrorism. All very illegal.

    actus (10527e)

  49. Since the topic is “terrorism” and someone mentioned Mohammed Atta…

    One thing that struck me as odd in the days after 9/11 was Bush saying “We will not tolerate conspiracy theories [regarding 9/11]”. Sure enough there have been some wacky conspiracy theories surrounding the events of that day. The most far-fetched and patently ridiculous one that I’ve ever heard goes like this: Nineteen hijackers who claimed to be devout Muslims but yet were so un-Muslim as to be getting drunk all the time, doing cocaine and frequenting strip clubs decided to hijack four airliners and fly them into buildings in the northeastern U.S., the area of the country that is the most thick with fighter bases. After leaving a Koran on a barstool at a strip bar after getting shitfaced drunk on the night before, then writing a suicide note/inspirational letter that sounded like it was written by someone with next to no knowledge of Islam, they went to bed and got up the next morning hung over and carried out their devious plan. Nevermind the fact that of the four “pilots” among them there was not a one that could handle a Cessna or a Piper Cub let alone fly a jumbo jet, and the one assigned the most difficult task of all, Hani Hanjour, was so laughably incompetent that he was the worst fake “pilot” of the bunch. Nevermind the fact that they received very rudimentary flight training at Pensacola Naval Air Station, making them more likely to have been C.I.A. assets than Islamic fundamentalist terrorists. So on to the airports. These “hijackers” somehow managed to board all four airliners with their tickets, yet not even ONE got his name on any of the flight manifests. So they hijack all four airliners and at this time passengers on United 93 start making a bunch of cell phone calls from 35,000 feet in the air to tell people what was going on. Nevermind the fact that cell phones wouldn’t work very well above 4,000 feet, and wouldn’t work at ALL above 8,000 feet. But the conspiracy theorists won’t let that fact get in the way of a good fantasy. That is one of the little things you “aren’t supposed to think about”. Nevermind that one of the callers called his mom and said his first and last name, more like he was reading from a list than calling his own mom. Anyway, when these airliners each deviated from their flight plan and didn’t respond to ground control, NORAD would any other time have followed standard operating procedure (and did NOT have to be told by F.A.A. that there were hijackings because they were watching the same events unfold on their own radar) which means fighter jets would be scrambled from the nearest base where they were available on standby within a few minutes, just like every other time when airliners stray off course. But of course on 9/11 this didn’t happen, not even close. Somehow these “hijackers” must have used magical powers to cause NORAD to stand down, as ridiculous as this sounds because total inaction from the most high-tech and professional Air Force in the world would be necessary to carry out their tasks. So on the most important day in its history the Air Force was totally worthless. Then they had to make one of the airliners look like a smaller plane, because unknown to them the Naudet brothers had a videocamera to capture the only known footage of the North Tower crash, and this footage shows something that is not at all like a jumbo jet, but didn’t have to bother with the South Tower jet disguising itself because that was the one we were “supposed to see”. Anyway, as for the Pentagon they had to have Hani Hanjour fly his airliner like it was a fighter plane, making a high G-force corkscrew turn that no real airliner can do, in making its descent to strike the Pentagon. But these “hijackers” wanted to make sure Rumsfeld survived so they went out of their way to hit the farthest point in the building from where Rumsfeld and the top brass are located. And this worked out rather well for the military personnel in the Pentagon, since the side that was hit was the part that was under renovation at the time with few military personnel present compared to construction workers. Still more fortuitous for the Pentagon, the side that was hit had just before 9/11 been structurally reinforced to prevent a large fire there from spreading elsewhere in the building. Awful nice of them to pick that part to hit, huh? Then the airliner vaporized itself into nothing but tiny unidentifiable pieces no bigger than a fist, unlike the crash of a real airliner when you will be able to see at least some identifiable parts, like crumpled wings, broken tail section etc. Why, Hani Hanjour the terrible pilot flew that airliner so good that even though he hit the Pentagon on the ground floor the engines didn’t even drag the ground!! Imagine that!! Though the airliner vaporized itself on impact it only made a tiny 16 foot hole in the building. Amazing. Meanwhile, though the planes hitting the Twin Towers caused fires small enough for the firefighters to be heard on their radios saying “We just need 2 hoses and we can knock this fire down” attesting to the small size of it, somehow they must have used magical powers from beyond the grave to make this morph into a raging inferno capable of making the steel on all forty-seven main support columns (not to mention the over 100 smaller support columns) soften and buckle, then all fail at once. Hmmm. Then still more magic was used to make the building totally defy physics as well as common sense in having the uppermost floors pass through the remainder of the building as quickly, meaning as effortlessly, as falling through air, a feat that without magic could only be done with explosives. Then exactly 30 minutes later the North Tower collapses in precisely the same freefall physics-defying manner. Incredible. Not to mention the fact that both collapsed at a uniform rate too, not slowing down, which also defies physics because as the uppermost floors crash into and through each successive floor beneath them they would shed more and more energy each time, thus slowing itself down. Common sense tells you this is not possible without either the hijackers’ magical powers or explosives. To emphasize their telekinetic prowess, later in the day they made a third building, WTC # 7, collapse also at freefall rate though no plane or any major debris hit it. Amazing guys these magical hijackers. But we know it had to be “Muslim hijackers” the conspiracy theorist will tell you because (now don’t laugh) one of their passports was “found” a couple days later near Ground Zero, miraculously “surviving” the fire that we were told incinerated planes, passengers and black boxes, and also “survived” the collapse of the building it was in. When common sense tells you if that were true then they should start making buildings and airliners out of heavy paper and plastic so as to be “indestructable” like that magic passport. The hijackers even used their magical powers to bring at least seven of their number back to life, to appear at american embassies outraged at being blamed for 9/11!! BBC reported on that and it is still online. Nevertheless, they also used magical powers to make the american government look like it was covering something up in the aftermath of this, what with the hasty removal of the steel debris and having it driven to ports in trucks with GPS locators on them, to be shipped overseas to China and India to be melted down. When common sense again tells you that this is paradoxical in that if the steel was so unimportant that they didn’t bother saving some for analysis but so important as to require GPS locators on the trucks with one driver losing his job because he stopped to get lunch. Hmmmm. Yes, this whole story smacks of the utmost idiocy and fantastical far-fetched lying, but it is amazingly enough what some people believe. Even now, five years later, the provably false fairy tale of the “nineteen hijackers” is heard repeated again and again, and is accepted without question by so many Americans. Which is itself a testament to the innate psychological cowardice of the American sheeple, i mean people, and their abject willingness to believe something, ANYTHING, no matter how ridiculous in order to avoid facing a scary uncomfortable truth. Time to wake up America.

    Enlightenment (ab8278)

  50. Comment by EFG — 10/23/2006 @ 7:20 pm

    Actually, actus, I was going towards that 1) Hugo Chavez is a Communist (meaning ideologically atheist) and 2) Venezuela is a Catholic country, so that he would see no commonality of long-term interest with Shiite snake-charmers, but your point that he would not be an accomplice to an act of war against the United States is also valid. Unless he’s nuts.

    Is true that Chavez is comunist and venezuelan population is 90% catholic, but in venezuela are one of the bigest colony of libanese (shiite) imigrant, about 20.000 people most of then muslin that came to venezuela during the 70′ and 80’and also Sirians and palestinians.

    I invite you to visit this web site:

    http://groups.msn.com/autonomiaislamicawayuu

    Pedro Perez (5e0a1c)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1275 secs.