It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 4
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 29 2005 @ 07:45 PM

Originally posted by djohnsto77
Asking the gov't to assassinate someone is no different than calling for the execution of a serial killer...I really see nothing illegal here, although it was in bad taste, especially for someone who calls himself a Christian minister.

If a foreign head of state you don't like gets threatend by one of America's most popular televangilists it's akin to calling for the assasination of a serial killer, if a head of state or a mulluh or something like that calls for the assasination of Bush or Cheney then they are Terrorists. I see your thinking quite clearly now and hopefully everyone else who's in doubt will too.

posted on Aug, 29 2005 @ 08:41 PM
Did I just hear what I thought I did? On the radio, Bush's comments on this situation, that...

"They only apply to Muslims."

No way in hell our leader could be this stupid. I'm sorry I didn't vote for him but hell doesn't care if the reason I get nuked is because this guy pissed off someone with nukes or if I choke on a Hoagie.

posted on Aug, 30 2005 @ 12:07 AM
chavez does need to be taken out, he was not elected, he bought people off and suppressed opposition through his military ties, hes only sympathised with because hes communist and anti american.

posted on Aug, 30 2005 @ 12:11 AM


Any of this? Even a little?

posted on Aug, 30 2005 @ 12:16 AM
So DJ you are saying if Janet Jackson had gone on at the Super Bowl and called for the death of President Bush it is just asking the government to execute a serial killer.... So Jon Stewart can command the CIA to kill PM Tony Blair on his show and it is just asking to kill a serial killer....


posted on Aug, 30 2005 @ 12:30 AM

Originally posted by nikelbee
I don't think Chavez is being paranoid, I think this is a good move on his part. Nothing may come of it, but he's not a man who will cower when idiots like Robertson get to bask in the limelight with stupid comments like these.

Chavez has gotten rid of most, if not all, foreigners, mostly Americans, who have been working in Venezuela for a long time before he was "made" president. He is making the US find other ways to look for oil and now that a US citizen makes a remark against him, which I happen to agree with, and he expects the US to give this American over to him?.....

Chavez is an idiot and a moron...

Oh btw, perhaps Chavez should be sued by the UN for the sexual harrasment quotes he made against Condoleza Rice....or the many threats he has made against the US.... You think Chavez would give himself up?....

[edit on 30-8-2005 by Muaddib]

posted on Aug, 30 2005 @ 08:33 AM

Originally posted by intelgurl
You've got to be kidding!?
No one is "dragging" Bush before the UN over some moron citizen's call for someone to be assasinated by the state.

Why not? Bush has invaded two sovereign nations based on his fight against terrorism. If Bush allows his own citizens to partake in terrorism unmolested then doesnt that throw both invasions into doubt?

Heres the deal why Chavez is seizing on this issue:

If some foreign muslim says "Al Qaeda should kill Bush/Americans" then the United States would deem them a terrorist. As terrorists, they are fair game to kill as enemy combatants in the War on Terror.

If the United States deems a foreign government to be harbouring or giving safe haven to said terrorists then they are fair game to be invaded.

Now Chavez has a clear cut case of a prominent American citizen partaking in terrorist behaviour. Robertson's comments were aimed at him personally and he has every right to object to what he said. Now all Chavez is doing is using the Bush administration's own logic here. If Bush condones Robertson's behaviour he is making bullets for the rest of the World to fire.

Iran to the US: Why should we stop our citizens from calling for the death of Bush? You never stopped Robertson

Syria to the US: Why should we hand over terrorist? You cant invade us, we are protecting our citzens right to freedom of expression.

Now if Bush continues to harp on about terrorists and Axis of Evil then he is clearly showing himself to be hypocritical.

But if Bush does sanction Robertson then he risks undermining the Republican Christian power base. Bush is in a damned if you do and damned if you dont situation. One that Chavez seems to be aiming for on a continual basis and he is good at it.

Originally posted by Muaddib
Chavez is an idiot and a moron...

Please, ease up on the convoluted vernacular there champo

He doesnt seem to be coming across as an "idot and a moron" to me. He looks like he is running rings around the Bush administration at the moment. The Bush administration hasnt been able to come back with anything to match Chavez's political point scoring - if you ask me.

posted on Aug, 30 2005 @ 09:17 AM

Originally posted by subz
If some foreign muslim says "Al Qaeda should kill Bush/Americans" then the United States would deem them a terrorist. As terrorists, they are fair game to kill as enemy combatants in the War on Terror.

Can you give any example of this, or is it just an assumption along the lines of the secret government concentration camps that people know exist, but don't have any evidence supporting their claim? Who has been captured because they said they wish or would like Al'Queda to take out the White House or Bush without any action of their own, not even a bounty or call to their followers to do the act? I've not read about a single incident along those lines, even on such anti-Bush/anti-War on Terror sites like Daily Kos or MoveOn. Haven't seen a thing indicating your assumptions are accurate.

posted on Aug, 30 2005 @ 09:52 AM
Why anyone would defend Robertson is beyond me...

he has made a mockery of the Christian faith...
As a Christian, I consider him likened unto the false Prophets/teachers, and he will get his due (and perhaps is as we speak)

He called for GOD to kill off Supreme court Judges...
He called for "US" to go get Chavez, and take him out...

He places himself as a church leader...

He aught to be ashamed, and in this situation... I think Bush needs to make a statement...

No more extremist/inflaming comments from this nations church or political leaders (It could be argued that he is both, since he has lobbiest power)

Regardless, I hope this situation places him where he belongs... right with with Jim and Tammy faye... doing pathetic shills on late night scam TV, Hawking miracle cures and vitalizing vitamin shakes...

posted on Aug, 30 2005 @ 10:15 AM

Originally posted by LazarusTheLong
Why anyone would defend Robertson is beyond me...

For the same reason that people such as myself would defend Salmon Rushdie, David Duke, Dick Durbin, or Green Day. It is because they have a right in this nation to express their opinion. If we turn a blind eye to an injustice being done to one, we commit an injustice to our entire nation. If we say, "You can express your opinion, as long as it's not this," where does it stop? Who is safe? As soon as one opinion is outlawed, it sets precident to enable others to be stripped away. If you cherish your freedom of speach, you have to defend even those you can't stand if that freedom is being trampled.

One Nation, under God, with liberty and justice for all.

posted on Aug, 30 2005 @ 10:39 AM
JUNGLE: there is the right to express one self, but calling for the death of people is not in those rights. Surely you can see this.

In other words. You have certain rights, but none of your rights extend so far as to hamper or tread on, the rights of another.

Robertson, has no right to call for the assignation of a political leader. Pat Robertson, by way of his "ministry" hold much clout in the Bush leadership either directly(Through lobby power) and indirectly(Through voters). What Pat has said can be liked to what many "terrorists" speak(only in mirrored perspective) and if the admin is to hold up themself's as going after the terrorists they will have to get him to a place where at least publically he is censored and punished for what he said.

His own personal views are his, but when he states them on a nationally televised show it is soemthing else entirely.

For the record I am not against anyone for speaking their mind, I would prefer if everyene did. Would make it easier to know who the crackpots are. However people can't go tromping halfway round the world to get those that speak exactly what Robertson did because they are terrorists, while turning a blind eye to him. It just smacks of hypocritial BS, and causes them to lose whatever was left of the creditbility.

posted on Aug, 30 2005 @ 10:48 AM

Originally posted by Passer By
However people can't go tromping halfway round the world to get those that speak exactly what Robertson did because they are terrorists, while turning a blind eye to him.

Yeah...No one has yet to qualify that statement with a single example of where we did that. I maintain that that is not US policy.

As to Robertson's call to assassinate, it wasn't. He was discussing political policy in questioning the doctrine we have not to assassinate world leaders, and explained why he thought it would be a good idea. That is not a call to arms, that's a political discussion. I believe he should have a right to express his political opinions, even if he believes in state sponsored murder (you know, like captiol punishment and abortion). As Ice T said after he had to pull Cop Killer from his Bodycount CD, "Freedom of speach, yeah boy, just watch what you say." It is wrong to censor some but not all. It is even worse when a foriegn leader demands that we ignore our soverign law and punish someone for following our laws. The worst, however, is when people who are using that very right support condemnation for another individual with whom they disagree.

posted on Aug, 30 2005 @ 10:58 AM
Why don't y'all listen to yourselves? Pat Robertson suggests that if the sanctions against assassination of foreign leaders have been dropped, maybe the administration should take Chavez out. Any sane, rational person would see that as a viable alternative to shedding a lot of blood in Venezuala, yet some of you want to compare that to Islamofascists speaking out to other unstable Islamofascists and demanding the blood of Westerners for Allah! Maybe some of you need to have a cup of coffee before you try and formulate a post!

As far as Chavez extraditing Robertson, that is equally stupid. In this country, we have the right to speak. Did Robertson demand that Christians run down there and kill Chavez? Did he say that HE was going to do it? No, on both accounts. No case, nothing.
Go find another mini-topic to take your frustrations out, this horse hasn't nary a bone left for you to whack with the anti-Christian sticks some love to whip out!!

posted on Aug, 30 2005 @ 11:26 AM
The comments of Mr. Robertson were silly and distasteful, and yes even close to what some of the radical Imams and Mullahs have done, however they did take place on U.S. soil, on U.S. airwaves, and may or may not be protected by the 1st amendment of the U.S. constitution. This is at the most a U.S. legal issue not a Venezuelan or United Nations one.

Chavez is a two bit punk dictator, he's been trying to provoke the Bush Administration with little success, and now a Christrian fruit cake has hurt his feelings. He needs to pick his purple and pink polkadot Hanes-Her-Way's out of his crack, bum a cigar from his buddy Fidel and get back to the business of running his own nation into the ground with archaic socialist "reforms" (there's an oxymoron, socialist reforms, hah!).

In all likelyhood, Chavez may very well be taken out by his own people, his ramp up of the military and expanding of military roles have made for some very powerful Generals who might want a shot at running the place. Chavez's thuggish land reforms and wealth redistribution have left some powerful and wealthy Venezuelans wondering if they can get some new leadership thru force. No, Pat Robertson or even George Bush should be the last of Hugo "the commie" Chavez's last worries, it's his own people he needs to worry about.

Oh yeah, don't forget about the Columbians, they might want a crack at Chavez too, seeing as how he is arming socialist insurgents fighting the democraticaly elected government there. Don't forget about the Drug lords either, they're fighting some of these same rebels for control of the drug trade too. Hey, here is my favorite part too, he's made such close buddies with good ole Fidel that if he ever wanted to move in a direction not to Castro's liking he could find a Cuban bullet in the back of his head. Nice!

Here are some links to stories that show that Chavez has alot more to worry about than the comments of a senior citizen religious zealot in the U.S.! Chavez has been fingered supplying arms to drug dealing rebels in Columbia and Equador, and has made quite a few real enemies, not just the ones he is threatining to sue.

The Weekly Standard
The U.S. Department of State has designated FARC a Foreign Terrorist Organization--yet FARC leaders are welcomed in Venezuela and treated as heads of state. The prominent FARC leader Olga Marin, for example, spoke on the floor of Venezuela's National Assembly in the summer of 2000, praising Hugo Chavez as a hero of the rebel movement and thanking the Venezuelan government for its "support." Weeks later, the Colombian government announced that it had confiscated from terrorists more than 400 rifles and machine guns bearing the insignia of the Venezuelan armed forces. Although President Chavez claimed this was a smear campaign against him and that many of those weapons could have come into terrorist hands as a result of border skirmishes with Venezuelan armed forces, his explanation was less than plausible, since some of the guns had sequential serial numbers and were therefore likely part of a unified arms shipment.

In February 2001, months after the Chavez government denied supporting FARC, the capture of a Colombian terrorist revived the debate. Jose Maria Ballestas, a leader of Colombia's other left-wing terrorist organization, the National Liberation Army (ELN), was captured in Venezuela's capital by Interpol operatives working in conjunction with the Colombian police. Although Ballestas was wanted for a 1999 commercial airliner hijacking, he was immediately released from custody by order of the Chavez government. As the Colombian media cried foul, Chavez officials denied that Ballestas had ever been arrested and claimed that "news" of his arrest was actually a story concocted by enemies of the Chavez government. When Colombian officials responded by releasing a video of the arrest, the Chavez government tried to claim that Ballestas was seeking asylum from political persecution in Colombia. As diplomatic tension reached a fever-pitch, Venezuela re-arrested Ballestas and grudgingly extradited him to Colombia.

Front Page Magazine
Those who don’t watch one of the Spanish language channels or al-Jazeera regularly might have missed the recent visit by President Khatami of Iran with Hugo Chavez in Venezuela. This visit comes as no surprise to those few who have really been paying attention to geopolitical events in Latin America. This visit also provides a key to understanding current Venezuelan polices. For the past few years these two régimes have been developing a strong, productive relationship. These two leaders have a surprising number of issues in common considering one is a leftist, would-be Marxist Latin American despot in training, and the other is an Islamist terrorist puppet of the Iranian mullahcrats.

However on the issue of the 100,000 new assault rifles that Chavez is about to receive, there is something special that Iran has to offer.

After having aided and in some instances directly ran much of the insurgency in both Afghanistan and Iraq, the government of Iran and in particular the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corp (IRGC) could provide invaluable assistance to the Chavez in his ongoing covert and increasingly overt assistance to the narco-Marxist terrorist known as the FARC and ELN in Colombia. These forces originally created by the Soviets and Cubans have been waging a 40-year campaign to destroy the democratic government in Colombia. In recent years, because of the fall of the Soviet Union and the success of U.S.-Colombian efforts to dismantle the drug cartels, FARC and other such groups, who were always connected and paid to protect the cartels operations, have begun taking a far more active role in the production and distribution of drugs from Latin America to the rest of the world. This has provided the financial resources necessary for them to continue their violence.

Unfortunately for the United States this is not the only connection Chavez has to terrorist groups, according to Major Diaz Castillo of the Venezuelan Air force, who was Chavez’s personal pilot until he defected, that he was ordered by Chavez to provide $1 million to al-Qaeda following 9/11, and that he witnessed the providing of Venezuelan identity cards to known terrorists on FBI watch lists. This could also offer insights into the increasingly close relationship between Chavez and the government of Iran, where large numbers of the al-Qaeda leadership are either known or suspected to be.

Furthermore, Chavez has raised the use of oil as a tool of statecraft nearly to an art form. It has been reported that Chavez provides below market price oil to the several nations of CARICOM (Caribbean Community) in exchange for their political and diplomatic good graces. In addition, Chavez provides large amounts of free oil to Cuba, which has kept that countries economy going the last few years. He has also funneled oil revenues to the Forum of Sao Paulo, an organization set up by Castro in the early nineties to replace his Tri-Continental Congress and whose stated goal is “our [Communist] losses in Eastern Europe will be made up for with our gains in Latin America.” This organization has already succeeded in bringing members associates to power in at least five Latin American countries, including Chavez's own victory in Venezuela.

posted on Aug, 30 2005 @ 11:35 AM
Maybe Pat Robertson was jamming out to AC/DC's "Dirty Deeds (Done Dirt Cheap)" on his way to the studio that morning and just got carried away.

Comrade Chavez needs a couple Midol tablets and warm bath, that usually helps my wife when she gets like this. If that offends anyone, well, then, uh, um...........sorry, I'm just telling it like it is.

posted on Aug, 30 2005 @ 01:17 PM
It's interesting how many of you are calling for Robertson's head.

Do you also believe that citizens of other nations around the world who burn Bush in effigy and say he should be killed should be extradited to the US and imprisoned?

Of course not.

If Robertson said those comments IN venezuela ok. If someone threatens Bush IN the US ok.

You can see people, on a daily basis, on television wishing death and assassination and all sorts of pleasantries on the American President, whoever it may be at the time.

They wished on both Bushes, on Clinton, on Reagan etc etc.

Those of you saying Robertson deserves to be prosecuted by Venezuela are additionally saying all the people on TV wishing death on Bush should get the same thing. Extradited and prosecuted in the US.


posted on Aug, 30 2005 @ 01:31 PM

Originally posted by Djarums
Do you also believe that citizens of other nations around the world who burn Bush in effigy and say he should be killed should be extradited to the US and imprisoned?

Apparently we already do that. No one wants to post examples, but they're very willing to state that the US already extradites, kills, or kidnaps anyone who does this throughout the world. That's why we have half of Iran's population locked up and most of Syria's. They're all locked up in the secret torture concentration camps we have for political dissidents and terrorists
GitMo is just a cover so people don't realize the entire country of Madagascar is actually a concentration camp we've established, since we now have to imprison so many people throughout the world.

posted on Aug, 30 2005 @ 01:33 PM
Uh Djarums, we are currently in two countries for that, and planning on Iran, Syria, and North Korea because of that, have you not been around sine 2002? Where they said "These countries are evil/have oil/other political/economical value, we are going to invade them". Anyways.....

Go Chavez, get that show taken off the air, how people defend him as 1st Amendment have no idea. The 1st Amendment is so you can speak out without fear, so you can say "This war is illegal, for oil, and is hurting our country, please bring our men and women home." Even though the administration wants you dead for it. But you can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater, unless there is. You can't go around threatning to kill people, that is against the law! This guy broke The Law on national tv to millions of brainwashed followers.

Green Day? So-So band, but when have they called for the killing of political persons? You can call someone a idiot, you can go on TV and call them a Giant Douchebag(Kerry) and a turd sandwich(Bush), but if you call for them to be killed while millions of people who are brainwashed watch you, you are breaking the law! I can't go over to someone and threaten to kill them, it is considered a crime and I have no power. Patty Boy has millions of brainwashed followers who hear this and agree, several on here, and e calls for people to be killed on a weekly basis! First it was SC judges to be killed, then Hugo, who's next? I can see it now...

"Lord this man exposed me for the Giant Douche Turd Sandwich that I am, Kill him! Smite him down! Wipe out his entire family! Kill everyone in a 10 mile radius of him! KILL!!!!!!"

I know bad imitation, he is far more violent in his calls for death.

posted on Aug, 30 2005 @ 01:41 PM
So talking about government policy (when you disagree with it) is along the same lines as a government harboring and refusing to turn in the man who was the mastermind destroying the World Trade Center. That makes sense. One was suggesting a change of official policy, the other as a whole adopted an official policy protecting those who killed over 2,000 civilians and said they were going to do it again on a much larger scale.

posted on Aug, 30 2005 @ 02:25 PM

Originally posted by junglejake
Can you give any example of this, or is it just an assumption along the lines of the secret government concentration camps that people know exist, but don't have any evidence supporting their claim?

Listen here buddy, while your sarcastic retorts might give you a chortle or two, they dont amuse me very much.

No one in this thread mentioned "secret government concentration camps" so your attempts to branch the thread off into a wider gambit are ill advised. There is a new guideline for derailing threads and you should stick to them.

On your valid request for evidence to back up the "if" statement of mine, I will oblige.

Are you familiar with an Islamic preacher by the name of Abu Hamza al Masri? He is currently imprisoned in the United Kingdom for preaching hate against Americans and Westerners in general. The United States wants to extradite him for supporting terrorist actions. It has never been said that he carried out or helped plan any attacks, he merely supports them vocally. This support, however, is now illegal in the United Kingdom and its why he is currently locked up. This still hasnt stopped the United States from asking to extradite him.

Now, Junglejake, show me the proof that shows Abu Hamza was materially involved in terrorism. If you do have such evidence you might want to inform the British authourities as well so they can charge him with more than incitement to violence and preaching racial hatred.

So far Abu Hamza is guilty of no more than voicing his vile opinion, which you would allow him under the 1st Amendment if he were an American citizen. Why should he be extradited then? For commiting something that he would be within his rights to do if he were an American citizen?

And whats the deal with qualifying Robertson's remarks because he is refering to American policy? Are assassinations legitimate because the Bush administration has relaxed the ban on the CIA killing people?

Would you thusly support Iranian state sponsored terrorism because its Iranian policy? I think you need to explain just what your opinion of state sponsored assassination is. Please bare in mind, whats right for the United States is also right for every country including North Korea, Iran, Syria, China etc

[edit on 30/8/05 by subz]

top topics

<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in