It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NEWS: Chavez: Taking Legal Action Against Robertson, Will Involve UN

page: 2
7
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 29 2005 @ 11:04 AM
link   

Robertson's statements were stupid, but certainly not illegal nor terrorist since he was calling on the government to assassinate someone,

Thats pretty silly. If robertson was Sheik bin Al-rajbin there'd be very little discussion. What robertson said and did probably is in fact terrorism. I can't see how Chavez can accomplish anything by going to the UN, he needs to sue in the US courts.




posted on Aug, 29 2005 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by FallenOne
I think that answers itself. People need to think before the hit the 'Post Reply' button.


PS That's exactly what starts wars. Pat is a dick and Christendom is for pussies if it's played out like that!

[edit on 29/8/2005 by FallenOne]


Yeah, i think you should of thought about this one before you hit the reply button.



posted on Aug, 29 2005 @ 11:13 AM
link   
It'll be interesting what lengths the UN will go to to both get back at the US for exposing the Oil for Food scandal and to remove our freedom of speach.

What's less interesting and far more disturbing, for me at least, is this mentality that we're even seeing here on this thread of freedom of speach only for those who agree with me. People will fight tooth and nail for someone whose rights may or are being trampled that they agree with, but are either silent or go after people whose rights may or are trampled that disagree with their stance.

You're going to have to decide if you want to live in a country with free speach or not. If you do, it must be for everyone. You can't pick and choose who gets their freedom of speach and who doesn't. If you don't want to live in a country with freedom of speach, please leave and stop trying to ruin my country.



posted on Aug, 29 2005 @ 11:15 AM
link   
taking this to the UN over one man??? i think chavez is taking this too far.



posted on Aug, 29 2005 @ 11:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake
You're going to have to decide if you want to live in a country with free speach or not. If you do, it must be for everyone. You can't pick and choose who gets their freedom of speach and who doesn't. If you don't want to live in a country with freedom of speach, please leave and stop trying to ruin my country.


Wooooo! Way Above for you junglejake! Great response!



posted on Aug, 29 2005 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by longbow


I said "christian right", not whole religion. And it's not only because of Robertson.


Well then you are implying more then one; so which is it one person or several make up your mind you cannot have it both ways.

If it is more then one, you are directing it at the christian faith.



posted on Aug, 29 2005 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
Robertson's statements were stupid, but certainly not illegal nor terrorist since he was calling on the government to assassinate someone, not individuals...I think this will go nowhere.


What?

Honestly, you don't think the U.S. would try and get me deported from the U.K. if I said Al Queda should assassinate Bush or that the Iranian Government should?

Edit:

If America do not deport him they'll find it a lot harder to get other nations to deport people who make threats against America and the President in the future as well.

[edit on 29/8/2005 by Odium]



posted on Aug, 29 2005 @ 12:45 PM
link   
Honestly, how many people have called for Bush's head on this site alone? Why aren't they being extradited? Because there is a fine line between terrorist remarks and crazy whacko tv preacher remarks, though they are often related.

So Hugo is going to go to the UN to bitch about Robertson...pffftt



posted on Aug, 29 2005 @ 12:48 PM
link   
Interesting, it almost as if..
Chavez is being coached, by the ACLU..
I congratulate him, and present him with, the bleeding heart medallion.
May he wear it proudly.
Yes, he's THAT good.

It may also behoove him to cross our border, we can then register
Mr. Chavez, in the political party, he has obviously already chosen.



posted on Aug, 29 2005 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by spacedoubt
Interesting, it almost as if..
Chavez is being coached, by the ACLU..
I congratulate him, and present him with, the bleeding heart medallion.
May he wear it proudly.
Yes, he's THAT good.

It may also behoove him to cross our border, we can then register
Mr. Chavez, in the political party, he has obviously already chosen.



Ohh...which party would that be? Please do tell us.



posted on Aug, 29 2005 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake
You're going to have to decide if you want to live in a country with free speach or not. If you do, it must be for everyone. You can't pick and choose who gets their freedom of speach and who doesn't. If you don't want to live in a country with freedom of speach, please leave and stop trying to ruin my country.


You are going to have to decide if we support/protect OUR countries religious extremists , while expecting muslims to extradite/prosecute theirs... "
It weighs heavy with the court of world opinion...

"Nah... Americans aren't hypocrites or double standardish at all... no reason for people to say that..."

JJ: You make Americans sound arrogant and hypocritical with statments like yours.
so please leave and stop adding to the negative perception of Americans in the eyes of the world

Also, freedom of speech DOES NOT GIVE THE RIGHT to threaten or encourage assasination of a countries president...

Religious Extremist... not just the muslims anymore.

This is what Bush stated shortly before Pat put foot in mouth... so sorry he forgot to excuse christians from the label... (actually I am glad,
Bush)



posted on Aug, 29 2005 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Odium
What?

Honestly, you don't think the U.S. would try and get me deported from the U.K. if I said Al Queda should assassinate Bush or that the Iranian Government should?


I don't. People have been saying just that for a while. Many extreme liberal sites hope for Bush to die or be the target of a terrorist attack. The law, so far as I know, is you can't say, "I'm going to kill the president." If an American says something to the effect that they want a group to take out Bush, or that they want someone to "impeach Bush with a bullet," they're going to be watched by the Secret Service, true. Yet, how many people have we had extradited here from western European countries that have said they wanted to or wanted someone to kill Bush? How many have been extradited to the US for saying the world would be better off if Bush were assassinated? None. Not a one, zilch. Actually, it's a million times that number
How many Iranians have we extradited here for that? How many Syrians?

Say it, Odium, and you'll be fine. Your IP addy will probably be monitored to ensure you're not also conspiring against America, but you will not be arrested and extradited. If anyone was extradited for that reason, it would be all over the news internationally. It's not. Hasn't happened.



posted on Aug, 29 2005 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by LazarusTheLong
JJ: You make Americans sound arrogant and hypocritical with statments like yours.
so please leave and stop adding to the negative perception of Americans in the eyes of the world


Not a chance. We're a diverse people, and I'm sure I'm not the only one to hold that opinion. Sadly, you have the right to campaign to have certain people not be permitted to express their ideas and others to have a completely open forum. That's your right because people like myself believe everyone should be able to express themselves and their ideas.



Also, freedom of speech DOES NOT GIVE THE RIGHT to threaten or encourage assasination of a countries president...


Really. So because I want Kim Jong Il dead, I should be extradited to North Korea even though I have no ability to do anything about it? Back in the late 90s when I expressed that I would like the SAS to assassinate Saddam Hussein, though they don't listen to me and it's just my opinion, I should have been extradited to Iraq? Or is it you just don't like Robertson and would like to see him silenced in any way possible, even if it means rewriting the constitution?



Religious Extremist... not just the muslims anymore.
Never was just the muslims. There have always been religious extremists. Difference in this situation is Robertson hasn't strapped a bomb to himself or had some zealot kid strap a bomb on himself and go blow up civilians to get at Chavez.



posted on Aug, 29 2005 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Odium

Ohh...which party would that be? Please do tell us.


Hehe.
not ohh..should be ooooooh..
So it IS obvious then.
thank you..



posted on Aug, 29 2005 @ 01:13 PM
link   
JUNGLE:

The obvious other difference is that if you or any individual speaks it is the vioce of one - when a public figure speaks he/she is not merely representing their view points, they are in a way representing the view points of everyone that put them in that place of power, and the possible influence of anyone who he holds sway over.

Now, when you say give me some money, or I say give me some money - we get cop squat.

When Robbertson says it he gets millions of dollars from christian folk. Robertson has also gone off about abortions before hasn't he? Hasn't christian terrorists bombed doctors clinic's and such? Aren't we really getting to a fine line between the good guys and the bad guys? Can't we show that Robertson has some sway over these christian terrorists - at least as far as any religous leader can hold sway - by cause and effect of his words and a few abortion clinic bombings?

So, if the above is true, then shouldn't robertson be held up in the manner that you would have the others hold up their religous leaders that preach death and religous terrorism?

Just asking



posted on Aug, 29 2005 @ 01:18 PM
link   
JungleJake, difference between you wanting Kim Jong II dead and someone with followers by the millions calling for the death of someone on national television, do you not see that? This kind of speech is up there with fire in a crowded theater when there is none. If he was just some guy on a website with no followers or political power no big deal, but this guy is a figurehead of the religous right with millions of followers, about 50million of them. I'd be worried if somone with 50million followers said 'KILL HIM! SHOOT HIM! SACRIFICE HIM TO THE GOD OF MONEY!!!!" wouldn't you? If I had 50million braindead/washed followers wouldn't you be worried if I called for you to be killed? Especially if some of my followers/brethren have the power to do so?

Sure it is fake worry, but damn if it ain't funny as hell.



posted on Aug, 29 2005 @ 01:19 PM
link   
That depends, Passer By. Does Bush report to Robertson? Is Robertson in charge of what our administration does? Robertson didn't say someone, he said the US government. If he has enough clout with the US government to where when he speaks, the government jumps, then yeah. If, however, the US government doesn't answer to Robertson, then no. Is it illegal for Bush to speculate at an invasion on Iran?

Oh, and we're going to have to charge Sheehan with some crimes if this is the way the country now works.

[edit on 8-29-2005 by junglejake]



posted on Aug, 29 2005 @ 01:26 PM
link   
Another good post hijacked by those that hide behind the freedom of speech excuse everytime it is convenient. Freedom of speech isn't something you just throw around disrespecfully like a snot rag and unfurl proudly when the need strikes you. Think back to 9/11 and how the US treated those who vocally protestested against the war. I knew a few people who even lost their jobs. And for what? For practicing their freedom of speech when it was incovenient.

BTW - you can't go up to someone in america and say I'm going to kill you or I want someone else to kill you without being on someone's bad list. But Robertson didn't say it in a casual way did he? He used the word assassinate - which means political murder.

By the way JJ it isn't just YOUR country, unless you are telling us you've now decided to go full fledged tyrant on us. The US belongs to 300,000 people, many who disagree with you about letting some conservative religious zealot speak for them.

Don't bring up hypocricy when the US is infamous for operating it's foreign policy knee-deep in hypocricy and double standards.

I suggest you start up your own anti Chavez thread so that most of you who aren't contributing here, can find somewhere else to spout the usual agenda, as it is quickly turning into another insulting battlefield.

Oh and please relax with the 'leave my country' if you don't think like what I say crap. It isn't your job to tell people when they should go or stay. As you have said oh so clearly in your post - people should be able to practice free speech' even if it means supporting Chavez and damning Pat Robertson.



posted on Aug, 29 2005 @ 01:30 PM
link   
How exactly was this topic hijacked?
Are we not discussing legal action against something that someone said?
And the right for them to say it?

I would say that free speech can be infringed upon, when people SCREAM FOUL, everytime, they are disagreed with. And yes, I believe it goes both ways.

Why are so many people protecting Chavez anyway?
I forgot, he's a wonderful guy..

[edit on 29-8-2005 by spacedoubt]



posted on Aug, 29 2005 @ 01:34 PM
link   
JUNGLE:

In a way Bush does answer to Robertson. Roberstons christian network thankfully tells many christians which way to think - those same christian "thinkers" make up a respectful amount of the Bush political movement - so therfore yes in a way Robertson does have an affect in the Bush admin.

In the words of the all knowing Apu



"Thank you, come again"



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join