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: 6
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in


posted on Aug, 30 2005 @ 10:57 PM

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...

Well then, I guess the war should be started right here in these forums i recall quite a few people in these forums have been calling the president a dictator and the US administration as an oppresive regime.... that should be many different ways....

Then again when you confront these people they respond quickly, "FREEDOM OF SPEECH".....

Now because a "Republican" and a "Christian" has said that the US should "take out" Chavez and you all want president Bush to prosecute this man or turn him over to Chavez?....

Was someone saying something about double standards?....

[edit on 30-8-2005 by Muaddib]

posted on Aug, 30 2005 @ 11:42 PM

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?

Terrorism? subz, I am sure you are not exagerating right?.....

and BTW.....president Bush alone did not invade any I recall quite a few countries were in the coalition against Afghanistan....and there were also quite a few that were/are with us against the insurgents in Iraq..... including Iraqi citizens who have attacked such insurgents you seem to defend constantly..... Then again, you did not try to "exagerate" the issue at hand right?.....

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.

There is quite a difference between calling for the deaths of Americans and other westerners, instigating violence and supporting terrorist organizations and a man saying a dictator should be "taken out."

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.

Said terrorists that Saddam was harboring and paying for their terrorist acts, have been bombing American citizens, westerners and Israeli people subz...... I guess you still don't see the difference.....

Originally posted by subz
Now Chavez has a clear cut case of a prominent American citizen partaking in terrorist behaviour.

That particualr citizen made one comment.... He is not instigating groups to attack Chavez, and I am sure president Bush is not going to take Robertson's advice and follow it through.

Originally posted by subz
Robertson's comments were aimed at him personally and he has every right to object to what he said.

Chavez issued unwarranted and illegal comments towards Condoleza Rice in the news... I don't remember you or anyone else who is asking now for "Robertson's head" complaining when Chavez was making such illegal and unwarranted comments against a woman, and a US official at that.....

Can we say double standards?......

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.

All Chavez is doing is trying to poke some more at the US and using any excuse to attack the US...that's what he is doing.

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.

Robertson apologized for what he said, how many of those same people from these countries who not only call for the death of US citizens but help terrorists achieve such goals have apologized and promised they would not attack or instigate violence against US and western citizens?....

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.

I guess this is no rethoric at all you are trying to divulgate..... I can remember a few statements you have said in the past that "almost match" what Robertson has said subz....

Could this be double standards on your part again?....

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.

I am certain the president would not do anything because there is nothing to be done about it. I don't see Robertson continuing to call for the US to take out Chavez do you?.... I don't see him calling for any extremists to take Chavez out....

Originally posted by subz
Please, ease up on the convoluted vernacular there champo

Well, I do remember you making "convoluted comments" quite a few times subz....and you always proclaimed it was your right and it was freedom of now you want me not to have that same freedom of speech you enjoy/enjoyed so much?....

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.

Chavez is a moron and an idiot and he is not running rings around anyone....

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.

Yeah, you got that right, you haven't seen millions of Americans taking to the streets against president Bush...and then you haven't seen the president of the US doing what Chavez did and call for the "Avila" plan to take effect, where armed groups shot several of Chavez protesters and were never prosecuted even thou their faces were captured in video...

I guess you call that "political point scoring"..... I guess Chavez must have learnt this from his mentor and friend fidel castro, who Chavez has called as the moral image that must be followed by Venezuelans..... A dictator learning from another dictator...who would have thought....

[edit on 30-8-2005 by Muaddib]

posted on Aug, 31 2005 @ 12:06 AM
Hey it's the least I could do, thanks Jungle Jake, if only you did, lol. Anyways I hope he gets deported, so interesting to find out how the justice system works in that country. I wonder if it is like America's, where you are a criminal, unless you are a rich man, then you get away with ANYTHING! If you Alibi for why you didn't shoot your wife was that you went back into the restuarant to get your gun and still be found innocent, damn that costs money. Of course it is only rich men, not rich women, Martha and I think Lil Kim, some female rapper, have gone to jail.

posted on Aug, 31 2005 @ 05:36 AM

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.

Britain does not acquiesce to the EU over matters such as this. It only pays lipservice to them when politically convenient.

Babar Ahmad: This is a heart-warming case of a British-born citizen being imprisoned without charge for over a year and is currently in the final stages of extradition to the United States for terrorist charges. The United States accuses the man of running a Islamic extremist web-site and creating a system whereby people can send funds to Islamic extremist groups in Chechnya and Afghanistan. Under the Extradition Treaty of 2003 between Britain and the United States, there is no guarantee that Ahmad wont face a military court with no restrictions on the death penalty.

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.


Still think the UK wouldnt extradite Abu Hamza if they had evidence of him being involved in material support of terrorists? Still think the British government defers their behaviour in favour of EU legislation?

Haroon Rashid Aswat: Charged with the same accusation as Abu Hamza from the United States that he helped set up a terrorist training camp on U.S soil. He was arrested following his capture in Zambia and transfered to the Britain. The United States is currently going through the extradition process to get custody of Aswat.

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.


Abu Doha: Heres a case you cant possibly refute. He was extradited from Britain to the United States on May 10, 2002. He faced charges of conspiracy to use weapons of mass destruction for his role in the attempted bombing of LAX airport on New Years Eve 1999.

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.


Still think the United Kingdom gives a damn about EU legislation? We pick and choose when to implement our EU obligations. Abu Hamza is still in British custody and charged only with voicing support for terrorists, I stand by my initial example and do not believe the UK has only kept him here because of EU legislation preventing his extradition to the United States. Thats just untrue.

Heres another example of what I would call the United States arresting some one for nothing more than sympathising with terrorists.

Hassan Mustafa Osama Nasr: An Italian national that was abducted off the streets of Milan this year. He was abducted by CIA agents without the permission of the Italian government. He was whisked away to Egypt for tortue at the behest of the United States and his location is currently unknown. No charges have been brought against this "extemist cleric".

If this man was guilty of a clear cut case of giving material support for terrorists then I would assume the United States would of approached the Italian government first. Afterall, why would the Italians hamper the conviction of some one who helps terrorists? They might object to some one being thrown in jail for expressing extreme views though.

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.

You can comment (within reason) about some ones post, comenting about the poster is shaky territory. Ive asked the mods for a second opinion on whats been said here and I'll post what I consider to be insults and derailing in the complaints forum, if I see it. So far its been borderline but I just, again, ask people to act with decorum and not attack/deride me personally. Thats all I will say on the matter now

Originally posted by looking4truth
Back on topic now, Robertson and Abu Hamza are not the same. You can't equate them.

Sure I can, Pat Robertson went on national TV and said the United States should break international law and assassinate the President of Venezuela. Abu Hamza preached on the streets of London that Al Qaeda should kill American's and Westerners. Abu Hamza was rightly jailed for his insidious rants, Robertson is currently facing litigation from Chavez over his. In my mind they equate.

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.

He apologized so thats ok? What if Abu Hamza apologized? Would the British authourites drop the charges of inciting racial hatred?

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.

I dont care for Hugo Chavez, this thread is not intended to give broad support for Hugo Chavez. It clearly pertains to what Hugo Chavez is currently doing with respect to Robertson's "retarded" comments. I support Chavez's actions with this respect and thats where I currently choose to end my support for Chavez's actions. I do not know all that he has done so it would be extremely impetuous to support him without exception like is being infered by a few here.

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.

Sorry, but are you trying to justify a policy of US government assassination here?

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.

Right and Left has absolutely nothing to do with my views, im well past that rubbish. Chavez's history also has no bearing on what I find to be an extremely important litmus test for this whole "War on Terror" and how the United States will attempt to stymie all religious extremists, not just Islamic.

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.

That has absolutely nothing to do with this issue. Replace "Chavez" with "Saddam" and the implications with respect to how the United States treats Christian extremists and incitement to murder (terrorism) still stand.

Originally posted by looking4truth
Not calling Chavez out on his crazy legal threats is silly, it's almost the same as supporting him.

What? If some one said that the government should kill you on national television you wouldnt be none too happy with it would you? Chavez has every right to haul Robertson infront of a U.S judge over this. Chavez's personal history should have no bearing on the matter if you have any respect for United States law.

Originally posted by looking4truth
No one has ever linked Pat Robertson to a terrorist organization or attempted assisination plots and military coups.

Is that due to a lack of political will or abscence of evidence? Thats a question no one can possibly answer but it is important to bring up. We do not know the full facts with regards to terrorism because our governments (UK and US) have a history of suppresing information and using misleading/false information. Pat Robertson could easily be implicated in an assassination attempt if he was a muslim cleric, there is currently a political will to do so.

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?

All I want to see come out of this event is President Bush sanctioning (not necessarily imprisoning) Pat Robertson over his remarks. I want to see the United States government say that what Robertson said was not protected under the First Amendment and that they will not assassinate Hugo Chavez.

If following that Chavez is indicted in the International Criminal Courts on some charge I wouldnt give a damn.

Originally posted by looking4truth
See the pointlessness of your previous arguements in other threads as well as this one about Mr. Chavez?

Forgive me if I do not

Originally posted by looking4truth
When I say Hugo Chavez is a thug punk dictator, it's a valid and evidenced viewpoint,

Yeah and it has no bearing on what Robertson said. The United States government cannot assassinate heads of state and remain on the sunny side of international law. Chavez's history is irrelevant.

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,

Apples and oranges. You cannot challenge me on something and use something unconnected to back it up.

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.

I too enjoy civil debates and discussions with any one who has the capacity to refrain from personal digs and slights. I've been around the forum scene long enough to not allow people disagreeing with my viewpoint to get in the way of me respecting or liking them. There are many people on this board alone that I like and respect and who are polar opposites in their views. That quickly fades though when disrespectful language gets thrown into the equation, im not saying you did it, but others have in this thread and it is unnacceptable to me.

Im starting to like this thread again and if your last post is an indication of how the thread will pan out then I look forward to reading it

[edit on 31/8/05 by subz]

posted on Aug, 31 2005 @ 05:26 PM
President Bush should absolutely keep his mouth shut about this matter. Each and every member of Congress (that still has some personal dignity) will keep their mouths shut as well. Most rational, thinking Americans, do not pay any attention to Robertson. Why would Hugo Chavez?

Because finding some "proof", either real or imagined, that the US is his enemy plays very, very, very well into the political rhetoric Chavez has been spewing for years, and allows him to justify the continued militarization of Venezula and the supply of arms and money to Latin American guerrilas.

Thanks to idealogues like Jesse Jackson, and many people in the public (as evidenced by postings here), Hugo Chavez has been able to retain a sybollance of legitimacy. Crimes committed by and for that leader go routinely unreported in the media. Had a Venezuelan TV eveangalist suggested Tony Blair or Bush should be assisinated, do you think it would even be news? Do you think the idealogues here and in the EU would be calling for any action to be taken?

This entire matter is an example of the childish nature of the Mainstream Media, Comrade Hugo Chavez, Leftwing Idealogues, and those people continually stuck in the "glass house".

How does what Pat Robertson said differ from gangster rap lyrics, a comedy sketch, a mystery novel, or any other form of popular commentary? It doesen't, no matter how silly, or uncivil, or wrong. If He had tried to raise money or provided material support to an assassin, like the example subz tried to use (Abu Hamza), then he would be a criminal. Pat Robertson doesn't effect American foriegn policy. Pat Robertson influences roughly the same number of people as Barbara Striesand and Eminem and Chevy Chase and any other public figure. The only difference here is the unbelievable stretch made in making Pat Robertson a tool to bash President Bush. That is weak and infantile.

If Pat Robertson should be prosecuted for his speech, then we should lock up each and every human who has every suggested at some point in their life, publicly or privately, that any form of death should be sanctioned, including abortion and the death penalty and euthanasia and war.

[edit on 8/31/2005 by looking4truth]

posted on Sep, 1 2005 @ 03:44 AM
Well then we should be hearing no more about people inciting terrorism then. If the United States tries to condemn anyone for the words they use they will be hypocrites. "Death to America"? Who cares

posted on Sep, 1 2005 @ 11:06 AM

Originally posted by subz
"Death to America"? Who cares

On that we agree. However, "Death to America! I call on all my followers to put a Jihad on the Great Satan and kill as many of them as you can," is a lot different. That is inciting terrorism, where as Robertson's point was questioning why the government didn't do something about Chavez.

It should also be noted that the media is not governed in the stories it reports on by the law. If they want to report a person saying, "death to America" while they burn a flag because they think it will get them better ratings, that is their perogative. The government, though, cannot extradite them for that, no matter how much the media may play it.

new topics

top topics

<< 3  4  5   >>

log in