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: 5
7
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 30 2005 @ 02:59 PM
link   
I use metaphors and examples when I describe things. I equated this allegation to the concentration camp claims because no one was giving examples, but stating it as fact. That's my style of communication, the way I find I best get my point across. Combat one absurdity with another, even if the absurdity only exists in my mind.

Thank you, though, for your example. I didn't know about him, and as a result did a little research. Perhaps I should contact the British government. Abu Hamza Al-Masri is not as innocent as you have been led to believe. The US is not the only country trying to get him extradited; Egypt and Yemen are, as well. He is definitely a propaganda artist, but as you stated, that is not illegal in the US. Other activities he is suspected of doing, and some he's admitted to on Al'Jazeera are, though.

First, he sends funds to fundamentalist Muslim terror organizations across the world. In December of 1998, his website published a brochure announcing an "Islamic camp". The brochure said that the camp offered "military training for brothers, self-development skills, martial arts, map reading, etc.” That sounds like a terrorist training camp to me, but that’s not all he’s done.

The Italian daily La Repubblica reported that the Italian secret service (S.I.S.D.E.) uncovered a plot to attack Bush during the G-8 summit in Genoa. The S.I.S.D.E. report connects him in a meeting held on June 29, 2001 with Abu Doha, an Al’Queda member recently arrested in London, as well.

He also appeared on Al’Jazeera to correct a misunderstanding of a quote he had made in regards to Yemen. “The word I used was not ‘foreigners.’ Some of the foreigners there [in Yemen] are Muslims. I speak of infidels. Infidels are innocent according to Islamic norms [if]: They become Muslims, or they pay jizya, or they enter into an agreement that guarantees their safety in a country that implements the Shari’a. Otherwise, their blood and wealth are not to be protected.” He also incited his listeners to attack a group of Russian journalists covering the incidents in Chechnya.

The Yemeni government claims that in October of 1998, he was involved in an attempt to assassinate Yemeni president Ali Abdallah Ssleh.

This man is suspected of a lot more than propaganda or expressing his opinion. He has his fingers in pies that he shouldn’t, allegedly. That is why the US wants him.




posted on Aug, 30 2005 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by sardion2000
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.


The entire Iranian government calls for the destruction of our entire country on practically a daily basis, as well as that of Israel.



posted on Aug, 30 2005 @ 03:27 PM
link   
PAT ROBERTSON . If Thomas and the other Christist Coalition followers can't hande this sin, maybe they should cleans themselves in holy Lava.



[edit on 30-8-2005 by asala]



posted on Aug, 30 2005 @ 03:40 PM
link   
This is the News Forum. Mind your language.

[edit on 30-8-2005 by intrepid]



posted on Aug, 30 2005 @ 03:59 PM
link   
Subz, now you're just embarrassing yourself. Abu Hamza? Leader of the group "supporters of shar'ia" or SOS, that Abu Hamza right? Really, an innocent man imprisoned for speaking out right? Get a grip, did you actually google or yahoo search Hamza? You know he's not "just" speaking out, right? You know he really did break US and UK laws too right? You know it's not just the Us and the UK that want him in prison, France would like a go at him too, it's other muslim countries like Yemen where he's provided support to terrorists that want to get him as well? You know he fought in Afghanistan right? The goal of SOS in London is to recruit and train fighters in the UK, but you checked out that part too, right? The same cleric whose son has been jailed in Yemen for taking part in bombings?


Al-bab.com
Over Christmas 1998, from December 24 to 26, SOS held its fourth Islamic Camp at Finsbury Park Mosque in north London. The list of activities included "military training for brothers". A picture of a hand grenade appeared on the publicity material. Admission was £20, with reduced prices for children and families.


Untill recently, you could have gone to his website www.shareeah.org... and seen some of his calls for fighting the west. Also was the SOS newsletter that often had very interesting detailed analysis of terrorist attacks. Apearantly P.M. Tony Blair wasn't joking when he said he was going to shut down extremist websites. By the way, James Ujaama, the head of the Bly, Oregon Al-qeada camp was the former webmaster. Interesting.

So, since his website is down, we need to look for quotes from him elsewhere. I hope PBS is ok. Here is an exerpt from an interview, reprters questions are in bold.


pbs.org
It seems though people are very frightened of you, because you're speaking as if those people who you say have justified grievances have done nothing but spill the blood of innocents -- the Nairobi and Dar-es-Salaam bombings, the Luxor massacre, the World Trade Center attacks and the Pentagon attack. This has all resulted in many people, clerks, secretaries, ordinary civilian workers, Muslims among them.

Well, you got to get your terms right as well. A civilian term doesn't exist in Islam. What exists in Islam and what matters in Islam, a harming body or harmless body; whoever is not harming, he's protected. ...


The idea of civilians not being a clearly defined group in Islam is very worrisome, too.

Is very worry, yes. Because you can have a woman, for example, who actually wearing a miniskirt and she's not military, but she's actually confiscating people's money and the computer and she's working as a spy. You can never call her a civilian. ...


So it's a form of collateral damage?

It's basically, "You pick on us, and we retaliate back." This is exactly what the message was given. I told you in Nairobi and Dar-es-Salaam was never an action. It was only a reaction for the handing over and snatching of people who are minding their own business and living in a country like Albania peacefully. They have families. You made the children orphans. And you have undermined their reputation, their struggled and their religion.

So, you know, if you want to see the real analogy, it's to tell your people the whole picture. Don't blame the nail who goes through the wall. First see what hammers the nail.


What I'm saying here Subz is, you you cannot honestly use a man like Abu Hamza as an example. It has been proven time and time again that recruits going to the training camps in Afghanistan where givin special access if they came with a letter of recomendation from Hamza. Several of these are known to exist, including the one he gave James Ujaama to gain entry into the Afghan camps.


When talking about Hugo Chavez, there is enough evidence, both public and not-so public, for the U.S. to seek an indictment in US Federal court for providing material support to internationally designated terrorist groups. Financial and other material support. The truth be told, there is far more evidence that Chavez is linked to terrorism than there ever was with Saddam Hussien.

Enter Venezuelan Air Force Major Jaun Diaz Castillo . Hugo Chavez's personal pilot untill he defected. Although not all of his claims have been verified publicly, enough has been shown to be true that the U.S. actually has legal grounds to imprison Chavez, should he ever step foot on US soil.


National Review online
January 5, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez's former personal pilot dropped a bombshell that has been ignored by just about every major U.S. news organization: The Venezuelan president, according to the pilot, gave al Qaeda a substantial sum of money following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

Venezuelan Air Force Major Juan Diaz Castillo, who is now seeking political asylum in the United States and says his "life and liberty are in danger in Venezuela," says Chavez chose him to conduct the transfer because he trusted him as a close personal assistant. But Díaz, disgusted with Chavez's regime, resigned his post on October 25 — and fled following a December 16 attempt on his life.

At a Miami press conference this past Sunday, Diaz said that shortly following the September 11 terrorist attacks, Chavez commissioned him "to organize, coordinate, and execute a covert operation consisting of delivering financial resources, specifically $1 million, to [Afghanistan's] Taliban government, in order for them to assist the al-Qaeda terrorist organization," while, "making it appear as if humanitarian aid were being extended to the Afghan people."

The first attempt to transfer the money fell through, but in late September 2001 Venezuelan Vice President Diosdado Cabello decided to funnel the money through Venezuela's ambassador in India, one Walter Marquez. The Taliban received the money and publicly acknowledged receipt of $100,000 in "humanitarian aid." "The rest went straight to al Qaeda," claims Díaz Castillo. "That is, $900,000."


Oh wait, there's plenty more. Many former Chavez chronies who defected after failed attempts on their lives by Cuban intelligence operatives inside Venezuela have come forward.


National Review
Diaz Castillo's testimony alone should not be taken at face value — but his statements are consistent with other defectors' testimony and Chavez's public behavior.

*General Marcos Ferreira, who resigned as director of Venezuela's border-control service, recently told Insight magazine that Cuba's General Intelligence Directorate (Spanish initials: DGI) has practically taken over Venezuela's ominously named Directorate for Intelligence, Security, and Prevention (DISIP), and that Interior Minister Ramon Rodriguez Chacin pressured him to cover up the identities of terrorists — many from the Middle East — passing through Venezuela and to deceive U.S. terrorism investigators. "I quit my job when I got tired of doing dirty work for Chavez with the Cubans looking over my shoulder," he said.

*General Nestor Gonzalez Gonzalez, another military dissident, says Chavez has routed weapons and supplies from Cuba through Venezuela to Marxist guerrillas in Colombia. Gonzalez was with Diaz Castillo on December 16 during the failed attempt on Diaz's life. Militares Democraticos, a military dissident coalition, claims that Gonzalez was also targeted and that Chavez's DISIP was behind the attempt.

*In 2001, Chavez paid state visits to — and signed "cooperation agreements" with — Libya, Iraq, and Iran.




I find it funny that Robertson has to apologize, he is after all a religious zealot whom most rational people pay no heed. If Pat Robertson lost two hands and an eye fighting in Afghanistan and then proceeded to start organizations like SOS to do Al-Qeada work like Abu Hamza, then I'd say go ahead and arrest him. But that's not really what he did.

Shouldn't Chavez apologize? There is after all blood on his hands, not just poison in his tongue.



posted on Aug, 30 2005 @ 04:21 PM
link   
when Robertson calls on the death of judges and doctors is that illegal



posted on Aug, 30 2005 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by cmaracing
when Robertson calls on the death of judges and doctors is that illegal


Yeah, if he calls for his followers to kill them it is. However, no one has been able to cite a situation that coencides with what Robertson said in this case where the US not extraditing him would be hypocritical. I'm assuming it's because there is no example.



posted on Aug, 30 2005 @ 04:42 PM
link   
The USA has taken into custody people for what has been said, Robertson is against abortion and is in favor of the death penalty. But what I don’t hear is outrage for a minister that wants death instead of tolerance of all



posted on Aug, 30 2005 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by cmaracing
The USA has taken into custody people for what has been said, Robertson is against abortion and is in favor of the death penalty. But what I don’t hear is outrage for a minister that wants death instead of tolerance of all


WHO?!?! That's what so many people have been saying, but they're not backing their words with evidence. Subz at least gave an example, but he was misinformed.

If you don't hear the outrage at his ridiculous comment, you haven't read through the thread. We've been there, done that, but as an American he has the right to make a fool and hypocrite of himself.

We do not answer to Chavez. We never have, we never will. He doesn't get to trump the Bill of Rights.



posted on Aug, 30 2005 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake
I use metaphors and examples when I describe things.

If you cant refrain from derailing threads with tangents then you'll run foul of Springer's new guidlines.


Originally posted by junglejake
Thank you, though, for your example. I didn't know about him, and as a result did a little research. Perhaps I should contact the British government. Abu Hamza Al-Masri is not as innocent as you have been led to believe.

Err hold the phone here, where did I say Abu Hamza was innocent? You asked for an example of some one the United States wants to extradite due to their vocal support of terroristic behaviour. I gave you one, but thats not good enough for you.

If he was involved in your supposed evidence of material support of terrorists then you can be assured Tony Blair would of prosecuted him over it. If there was such a cornucopia of evidence linking him to material support of terrorists then why was he arrested and jailed under racial hatred legislation? That speaks louder than any supposed evidence you might dredge up.


Originally posted by junglejake
First, he sends funds to fundamentalist Muslim terror organizations across the world.

Then why wasnt he arrested for it?


Originally posted by junglejake
In December of 1998, his website published a brochure announcing an "Islamic camp". The brochure said that the camp offered "military training for brothers, self-development skills, martial arts, map reading, etc.” That sounds like a terrorist training camp to me, but that’s not all he’s done.

It also sounds like a scout camp to me, whats your point?


Originally posted by junglejake
The Italian daily La Repubblica reported that the Italian secret service (S.I.S.D.E.) uncovered a plot to attack Bush during the G-8 summit in Genoa. The S.I.S.D.E. report connects him in a meeting held on June 29, 2001 with Abu Doha, an Al’Queda member recently arrested in London, as well.

Connected with some one suspected of being a part of a plot that never eventuated? How was he connected? Was he an acquaintence? Well golly, the Bush family is connected to the Bin Laden family both financial and personally. Whats your point?


Originally posted by junglejake
He also appeared on Al’Jazeera to correct a misunderstanding of a quote he had made in regards to Yemen. “The word I used was not ‘foreigners.’ Some of the foreigners there [in Yemen] are Muslims. I speak of infidels. Infidels are innocent according to Islamic norms [if]: They become Muslims, or they pay jizya, or they enter into an agreement that guarantees their safety in a country that implements the Shari’a. Otherwise, their blood and wealth are not to be protected.” He also incited his listeners to attack a group of Russian journalists covering the incidents in Chechnya.

Words. Hows that any different to Pat Robertson calling for the United States government to assassinate Hugo Chavez? Would you of let Abu Hamza's diatribe slide if he asked the Yemeni government to kill the foreign infidels instead?


Originally posted by junglejake
The Yemeni government claims that in October of 1998, he was involved in an attempt to assassinate Yemeni president Ali Abdallah Ssleh.

Again, why is he in Belmarsh for racial hatred crimes if he has this hanging over his head?


Originally posted by junglejake
This man is suspected of a lot more than propaganda or expressing his opinion. He has his fingers in pies that he shouldn’t, allegedly. That is why the US wants him.

In all due respect, the Yemeni/American/British government could suspect him of inciting Hurricane Katrina but that doesnt make it true. If there was this much dirt on Abu Hamza he would of been in Gitmo faster than you could say "misunderestimate me"!


Originally posted by looking4truth
Subz, now you're just embarrassing yourself.




Originally posted by looking4truth
Abu Hamza? Leader of the group "supporters of shar'ia" or SOS, that Abu Hamza right? Really, an innocent man imprisoned for speaking out right?

Again, did I say Abu Hamza was an innocent man? Im giving an example of why Robertson should be locked up, just like this one-eyed, claw handed miscreant is.


Originally posted by looking4truth
Get a grip, did you actually google or yahoo search Hamza? You know he's not "just" speaking out, right? You know he really did break US and UK laws too right? You know it's not just the Us and the UK that want him in prison, France would like a go at him too, it's other muslim countries like Yemen where he's provided support to terrorists that want to get him as well? You know he fought in Afghanistan right? The goal of SOS in London is to recruit and train fighters in the UK, but you checked out that part too, right? The same cleric whose son has been jailed in Yemen for taking part in bombings?

Save your histerics and swipes, they are lost on me. Do you really think that the British government would allow Abu Hamza free reign to preach his special brand of racial hatred until October 2004 when he was arrested for inciting violence if he had such a stellar and obvious material support for terrorists?


Originally posted by looking4truth
Untill recently, you could have gone to his website www.shareeah.org... and seen some of his calls for fighting the west.

So what? They are words, right? First amendment right?


Originally posted by looking4truth
Also was the SOS newsletter that often had very interesting detailed analysis of terrorist attacks. Apearantly P.M. Tony Blair wasn't joking when he said he was going to shut down extremist websites. By the way, James Ujaama, the head of the Bly, Oregon Al-qeada camp was the former webmaster. Interesting.

And that disproves my stance that Robertson should be sanctioned by the United States government how? Where am I saying that Abu Hamza should be allowed to say what he said? Im saying that in addition to Abu Hamza, the likes of Pat Robertson should be sanctioned in the same fashion.


Originally posted by looking4truth
What I'm saying here Subz is, you you cannot honestly use a man like Abu Hamza as an example. It has been proven time and time again that recruits going to the training camps in Afghanistan where givin special access if they came with a letter of recomendation from Hamza. Several of these are known to exist, including the one he gave James Ujaama to gain entry into the Afghan camps.

Since when does having a recomendation letter prove you are providng material support for terrorists? Abu Hamza is guilty of sympathising with, and encouraging terrorism. Thats my point, get it? Just like Robertson's calling on the United States government to wage their own jihad against Hugo Chavez.


Originally posted by looking4truth
When talking about Hugo Chavez, there is enough evidence, both public and not-so public, for the U.S. to seek an indictment in US Federal court for providing material support to internationally designated terrorist groups.

And there is ample evidence to prove the very same for the United States government. What is your point?


Originally posted by looking4truth
I find it funny that Robertson has to apologize, he is after all a religious zealot whom most rational people pay no heed. If Pat Robertson lost two hands and an eye fighting in Afghanistan and then proceeded to start organizations like SOS to do Al-Qeada work like Abu Hamza, then I'd say go ahead and arrest him. But that's not really what he did.

Whats the fact that he hasnt lost an eye or a hand got to do with anything? Pat Robertson has millions of followers in the United States and he went on national television and emplored the United States government to break international law and murder the Venezuelan Head of State. If you dont think he should of apologized for that then I think im wasting my time even responding here.

[edit on 30/8/05 by subz]



posted on Aug, 30 2005 @ 05:43 PM
link   
Where did you read that the US wants him for hate speech? I was under the impression after reading a bit that he was wanted for financing terrorist organizations.

The Yemen connection is just that. The government in Yemen wants this guy worse than the US does. Egypt wants him, too. 4 governments want this guy, all for similar charges. Italian intel supports at least 3 of the country's claims, if not England's reasoning for arresting him, too. England has hate speech laws, and that's what they nailed him on. The US does not. Just because England arrested him for one thing doesn't mean that's what the US wants him for. Why would we, we have a pretty close alliance with England right now. Any intel they get out of him will probably come to us. No, we want him for other reasons, not for hate speech.

As to "derailing" a thread, no one but yourself seemed to misunderstand my point. When I get notification from a moderator that I can no longer explain what I mean through metaphors and analogies, I'll stop. Until then, I'll continue, because it is the way I best express my ideas. Obviously they've been here as Asala edited FallenOne's thread.



posted on Aug, 30 2005 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake
Where did you read that the US wants him for hate speech? I was under the impression after reading a bit that he was wanted for financing terrorist organizations.

Well my understanding of the matter is the following.

There is no actual evidence of him giving material support for terrorists as the Blair government was itching for a reason to lock him up, so much that they wrote the racial hatred law with this guy in mind. Couple this with the fact that the United States still wants to extradite him and that he is guilty of no more than he's been charged with in Britain.

You, being a non-Briton, would probably be unfamiliar with just how much of an embarassment Abu Hamza was for the Blair government. Every one was stunned at how this miscreant could be allowed to preach what he did in our country. Now, if these other governments had any evidence whatsoever that Abu Hamza had given material support to terrorists (enough to convince a British court) they would of jumped at the chance to handball him off and extradite him, but they never did.

Now can you please drop the whole "examples" line, I've given you an example and you disagree with my opinion. Its not through lack of examples at all so saying that no one has provided you with them is misleading.

[edit on 30/8/05 by subz]



posted on Aug, 30 2005 @ 06:40 PM
link   
He committed a crime! PROOF!
caselaw.lp.findlaw.com...
Misdemeanor...
caselaw.lp.findlaw.com...
Felony!!!!
The misdemeanor he could probably plea out, but the federal felony? Yowzers.

Sucks to be him now don't it?



posted on Aug, 30 2005 @ 07:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jestaman
He committed a crime! PROOF!
caselaw.lp.findlaw.com...
Misdemeanor...
caselaw.lp.findlaw.com...
Felony

Hey way to cite legal jargon


Thats pretty unequivocal proof that what Robertson said was against U.S law.


Section 112. Protection of foreign officials, official guests, and internationally protected persons

(a) Whoever assaults, strikes, wounds, imprisons, or offers
violence to a foreign official
, official guest, or internationally
protected person or makes any other violent attack upon the person
or liberty of such person, or, if likely to endanger his person or
liberty, makes a violent attack upon his official premises, private
accommodation, or means of transport or attempts to commit any of
the foregoing shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not
more than three years, or both. Whoever in the commission of any
such act uses a deadly or dangerous weapon, or inflicts bodily
injury, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than
ten years, or both.
(b) Whoever willfully -
(1) intimidates, coerces, threatens, or harasses a foreign
official or an official guest or obstructs a foreign official in
the performance of his duties;

[...]

d) Nothing contained in this section shall be construed or
applied so as to abridge the exercise of rights guaranteed under
the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

Well I wonder how you can be jailed/fined for threatening some one if you are constitutionally allowed to do so? That doesnt make sense to me. This document proves that you do not have the constitutional right, under the first amendment, to threaten foreign officials.

And Robertson's qualification that he meant the US government should "kidnap" Chavez?


Section 875. Interstate communications

c) Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any
communication containing any threat to kidnap
any person or any
threat to injure the person of another, shall be fined under this
title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

"Banged to rights" come to mind


Thanks for the links


[edit on 30/8/05 by subz]



posted on Aug, 30 2005 @ 07:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by subz

Thats pretty unequivocal proof that what Robertson said was against U.S law.



Oh I love it when people try to make out they are legal experts


Just where did Robertson threaten him on a personal level?

He did not he suggested that the US do it.


There was no personal threat made at all. Robertson gave nothing more then his personal opinion of what should happen, there is a big differance.




posted on Aug, 30 2005 @ 07:24 PM
link   
Subz: That's interesting, I was under the impression the UK couldn't extradite him to the US because the EU requires members to refuse extradition to countries with the death penalty. As for asking for examples, I maintain it. First off, by EU law, England cannot extradite him to Yemen or the US no matter the crime, and I presented evidence that you summarily dismissed as irrelevant and unsubstantiated because you're sure that the UK would break EU rules to send him away. I thank you for presenting an example, I just don't think he's a good one.

Jestaman, if I had any Way Aboves left this month, you would have gotten one of them. Awesome job quoting case law. There are two problems I see with this, though. Both of the laws you linked to would be dependant on the lawyers representing. If the prosecution has a fantastic lawyer and Robertson a terrible one, the charges could definately stick, but more than likely they'll be evenly matched or Robertson will get an amazing lawyer. The language is set up in such a way as to not directly apply to Robertson's situation, and as a result the court would have to either rule by precident or establish precident.
I'm assuming you're referring to this from Section 875 that he broke:


(c) Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any
communication containing any threat to kidnap any person or any
threat to injure the person of another, shall be fined under this
title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

First, Robertson was not involved in interstate or foreign commerce. That could be challenged by a good lawyer stating that his broadcast could be seen across the world and people can send him money. The counter to that would be that his target is obviously Americans, and his affiliates are in America. Second, the statement was not a threat of violence, it was a question asking why the US government wouldn't do so with reasons supporting his questions validity.

As to the felony, subz already quoted the majority of that. Now we would get into Clintoneese; it depends on what the meaning of offer is. If offer means, "Hello, sir, I would like to present you with my fist," Robertson didn't break it. As I stated earlier in this post, he questioned the US government's lack of such an offer. If offer means to exact the punishment himself, which, in the context of the law, seems more likely, obviously he didn't shoot Chavez. Seeing that it is an assault law, I am led to believe an actual assault would have to take place.

Subz also pointed out the threat context of the law. Answers.com defines threat as having 3 different meanings:


1. An expression of an intention to inflict pain, injury, evil, or punishment.
2. An indication of impending danger or harm.
3. One that is regarded as a possible danger; a menace.

Robertson himself had no intention of assassinating Chavez. If he had ended with, "and if they don't do it, I will," absloutly he'd have broken the law. He didn't even indicate that there was an impending danger or harm coming to Chavez. In fact, it was this lack of indication that he was complaining about. As Subz says, this document only states that it is illegal to threaten foreign officials, which Robertson did not do.

It is my opinion, Robertson did not break either of those laws for the reasons I've stated. If it was so cut and dry, this is a case any DA would be clawing for, because it would be a sure bet to make a name for themselves. Robertson is very well known. Yet none are. No charges have been leveled at Robertson. Any lawyer worth their weight in water (not bottled; tap) would be able to get him off of these charges, if any DA were crazy enough to take up the case.



posted on Aug, 30 2005 @ 07:29 PM
link   
You have voted junglejake for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have used all of your votes for this month.

Way to go Jungle you hit the nail right on the head with all of your points!



posted on Aug, 30 2005 @ 07:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by shots
You have voted junglejake for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have used all of your votes for this month.

Way to go Jungle you hit the nail right on the head with all of your points!

And he managed it without personal insults shots, you might learn a thing or two



posted on Aug, 30 2005 @ 07:33 PM
link   
Where did I insult anyone? I did not mention anyone, I expressed my personal opinion about people who try to make themselves out as lawyers nothing more.

peo·ple (p¶“p…l) n., pl. people. 1. Human beings considered as a group or in indefinite numbers:


[edit on 8/30/2005 by shots]



posted on Aug, 30 2005 @ 08:33 PM
link   
Subz, just a thought here, the "new" ATS guidlines are not onesided, you can't call someone elses posts "hysterics" and the like and yet point out how counter viewpoints are violating those guidlines. That's the stuff kids on a playground pull. You've been called out for your views here, thats all. Some of it may feel like a direct "attack" on you, it's the point you are trying to make though, that's where the jabs come in. That's life. Sound like a lecture? Sorry if it does, but that's a point I feel needs to be brought up. You keep pulling that "new ATS guidlines" thing and I think you are expecting it to protect your views, but, it's meant to protect ATS more than it's members personal feelings.

Many of your recent articles on ATSSN are of a political nature which ofcourse is going to bring debate and criticism and yes even ideaologicaly drivin attacks, but that's what you get when you play the game in that way. Try posting articles on Cryptozoology and see how many threads get derailed. Politics and politicians are as personal as love and the lovers you chose, post an article that challenges that and yes, you are going to feel the heat. I suspect that's why the Admin will have a hard time enforcing the "new" guidlines.



Back on topic now, Robertson and Abu Hamza are not the same. You can't equate them. Other than both claiming to be religious leaders, the similarities pretty much end there. Robertson did apologize for his retarded comments, Hamza never apologized for holding a celebration on 9/12/2001, not a whole 24 hours after 3,000 people were murdered. Robertson made a statement that the US should kill Chavez, he did not ask his followers to do any killing. Had he done so, I for one would be asking for his imprisonment. I can't stand people who hijack peacful religion for murderous reasons, be them christian, jew, muslim, buddhist, or even wiccan.

I can't stand Pat Robertson. I pretty much dislike all religious leaders, of all religions, but I understand their value in society. Many people respect them and follow their teachings yes, but when Mr. Robertson made those comments he was called out on them and eventually backed down and apologized. Sounds to me like he was being a man about it at least.

Of all the evidence available to you, Subz, all that's at your finger tips here on the internet, you have to be getting a clear picture of who Hugo Chavez is. Calling for his assasination by a religious leader is silly yes, but not as criminal as say, hmmmm, funding Al-Qeada, FARC, ELN, etc., as well as providing some of them with arms. The UN prohibits that. Where's your outrage about that? Let me guess, he's anti-America so it must mean he's doing something good right? Do you realize he SIDED with Saddam? You can disagree with the war in Iraq for almost innumerable reasons, but to side with a tyrant like Saddam gives a clue to a person's true feelings about the value of human life and dignity. There's only one reason to want to be a pertner of Saddam Hussien if you are an oil rich dictator, it's because he did it so well, and that's why Chavez worries so many people.

Try to look past the right/left debate, Chavez is bad news. If you can't at least admit that then you have a real issue with reality I fear. Robertson's comments were ridiculous, that's true, but you absolutely cannot under any circumstances support Chavez and Democracy at the same time. Not calling Chavez out on his crazy legal threats is silly, it's almost the same as supporting him. You don't want your own government to fund and arm drug dealing thugs like the FARC, and you want leaders who do it held acountable (as in the US with the Taliban and Saddam against Iran) but you can't find it in your heart to do the same when Chavez does it? Why? Because he doesn't like Pres. Bush?

If you want, take a minute and ponder that, why would someone feel it's ok for Hugo Chavez to do so, but find endless outrage when the US is called out for doing it? All parties are wrong when they do that. The US is hated througout the world for the exact same crimes Hugo Chavez is committing in Latin America, funding guerillas for his own political motives, so why is it ok for him to do so?

If the god Pat Robertson believes in exists then I'm sure he'll have to stand before him and answer for his mediocrity. Hugo Chavez is a real and immenent threat to a great deal more people than a Pat Robertson could ever be. He may even get his way and get abortion made illegal, but he's not using an historically peaceful nations oil wealth to fund and arm drug trafficking guerillas. No one has ever linked Pat Robertson to a terrorist organization or attempted assisination plots and military coups. Ask yourself logically, what possible good would come out of Pat Robertson in the Hague and Hugo Chavez still in direct control of billions in oil wealth and a whole entire military? See the point? See the pointlessness of your previous arguements in other threads as well as this one about Mr. Chavez?



When I say Hugo Chavez is a thug punk dictator, it's a valid and evidenced viewpoint, when I say you are dead wrong in likening Pat Robertson to Abu Hamza, when I challenge your views on third world tyrants, it's a valid arguement. It's not personal, it's politics. Quit throwing out the ATS guidlines evertyime someone uses a little drama in their posts. I'm pretty damn sure that's not what the mass U2U we all got was meant to convey. If I'm wrong let the Admin tell me, otherwise rebutt the arguements don't try to "police" us when we challenge your views. I've never met you in real life Subz, and I'm pretty sure we'd get along great if we did meet, I have alot of respect for the way you articulate your views and the way you stand up for yourself when challenged. You usually always provide links to back up claims, which is more then can be said of many posters here, but I really feel as though the way you through the ATS guidlines thing out there should be challenged. Back off that, the Admin will deal with it, do what you do best, make intelligent arguements, I enjoy the almost 18th century like dueling you and I have done in some threads. I DON'T like Hugo Chavez or Pat Robertson, but I do enjoy a witty debate with a smart person like yourself. Almost nothing in life is a rare as having fun debating someone. I'll bet you enjoy it as much as anyone, otherwise the number of ATSNN articles submitted would cease to grow, which it hasn't. Don't think no one notices. Peace and love............ and screw Hugo Chavez




top topics



 
7
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join