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.
Originally posted by LazarusTheLong
.................
Bush needs to follow his own direction and OPPOSE THE EXTREMISTS...
and turn the guy over, or prosecute him in country...
............
Originally posted by subz
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?
Originally posted by subz
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.
Originally posted by subz
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.
Originally posted by subz
Now Chavez has a clear cut case of a prominent American citizen partaking in terrorist behaviour.
Originally posted by subz
Robertson's comments were aimed at him personally and he has every right to object to what he said.
Originally posted by subz
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.
Originally posted by subz
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.
Originally posted by subz
Now if Bush continues to harp on about terrorists and Axis of Evil then he is clearly showing himself to be hypocritical.
Originally posted by subz
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 subz
Please, ease up on the convoluted vernacular there champo
Originally posted by subz
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.
Originally posted by subz
The Bush administration hasnt been able to come back with anything to match Chavez's political point scoring - if you ask me.
Originally posted by junglejake
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.
The Home Secretary Charles Clarke has asked for an extension until September 2005 for his final decision on the extradition of alleged terror suspect Babar Ahmad to the United States of America.
Mr Ahmad was originally arrested, fully investigated and released without charge by British Authorities in December 2003. He was rearrested on an extradition warrant from the United States in August 2004.
Haroon Rashid Aswat, 30, who was arrested in Lusaka, Zambia, last month, was immediately arrested on his arrival at RAF Northolt in Middlesex following a US request for his extradition, Scotland Yard said.
An Algerian described by British intelligence sources as Osama bin Laden's main man in the UK is to be extradited to the US to face charges that he plotted to bomb Los Angeles airport.
A judge in Belmarsh high security magistrates court said yesterday that Amar Makhlulif, also known as Abu Doha, had been at the al-Qaida training camp at Khalden in Afghanistan and that he had been trained in the use of explosives and assassination.
Mr Makhlulif, 37, who is accused of being bin Laden's European "gatekeeper", is alleged to have been part of a plot to blow up Los Angeles airport on millennium eve as well as being linked to bomb plots in Strasbourg and Paris.
Originally posted by looking4truth
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.
Originally posted by looking4truth
Back on topic now, Robertson and Abu Hamza are not the same. You can't equate them.
Originally posted by looking4truth
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.
Originally posted by looking4truth
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.
Originally posted by looking4truth
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.
Originally posted by looking4truth
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.
Originally posted by looking4truth
Robertson's comments were ridiculous, that's true, but you absolutely cannot under any circumstances support Chavez and Democracy at the same time.
Originally posted by looking4truth
Not calling Chavez out on his crazy legal threats is silly, it's almost the same as supporting him.
Originally posted by looking4truth
No one has ever linked Pat Robertson to a terrorist organization or attempted assisination plots and military coups.
Originally posted by looking4truth
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?
Originally posted by looking4truth
See the pointlessness of your previous arguements in other threads as well as this one about Mr. Chavez?
Originally posted by looking4truth
When I say Hugo Chavez is a thug punk dictator, it's a valid and evidenced viewpoint,
Originally posted by looking4truth
when I say you are dead wrong in likening Pat Robertson to Abu Hamza, when I challenge your views on third world tyrants,
Originally posted by looking4truth
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.
[...]
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.
Originally posted by subz
"Death to America"? Who cares