Chavez has said that he the the world must "fight" against the US, and claimes the US is the source of all oppession and poverty in Latin America. He invited terrorist sponsoring countries to join him in his "fight".
Below is from a news account:
"That earlier march was to protest the ultra-Leftist policies of President Hugo Chavez Frias. He had been democratically elected in 1998, and the marchers believed Venezuela was a vibrant democracy with freedom of speech and assembly.
But as the marchers approached his palace, thugs began firing guns into the large throng of peaceful protestors. Fourteen of the unarmed marchers were killed and more than 100 were wounded. Between 60 and 70 people died later that day amid street violence.
Videotape by local television stations showed that apparently at least some of these gunmen were Chavistas, as Chavez’s rabid supporters are called, and were members of his "Bolivarian Circles," as he calls his own Marxist militia version of Hitler Youth and SS storm troopers."
When they wear military fatiques (as he sometimes does), when they shoot protesters, when they invite terror sponsors into their country, they are dangerous...HISTORY tells us to.
Please post the link for that news report...Seriously, I'm interested.
As for the love for analogies in this thread, I present the following from the New York Times, May 4th, 1970 (http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/big/0504.html#article):
"Four students at Kent State University, two of them women, were shot to death this afternoon by a volley of National Guard gunfire. At least 8 other students were wounded.
The burst of gunfire came about 20 minutes after the guardsmen broke up a noon rally on the Commons, a grassy campus gathering spot, by lobbing tear gas at a crowd of about 1,000 young people."
So it would have been okay if, say, Fidel Castro invoked the name of God in calling for an assassination of Nixon in 1970? Or is 14 deaths in Venenzuela okay, while 4 is acceptable?