700 Club's Robertson Wants Chavez Assassinated

Originally posted by jsobecky
Robertson is a fruitcake. Where does a supposed "man of God" come across calling for the murder of another human being?


!!!!!! Hallelujah brother!!!!!!!

And another thing... he does not represent God here on earth. He allies himself with Charles Taylor for his own personal gain, regardless of the human cost in Liberia.

Actually Pat is serving the God of Horse racing I read somewhere that he is into horse racing and own some himself, I gets is nothing better than a good bet in the name of the lord.

Where the hell does he come across trying to influence SCOTUS nominations?

That is what I don't understand he thinks that he is in charge of the Republican party from behind the scenes.

Why do people fall for such a clown as Robertson? Can't they see he is nothing more than a charlatan?

Yes, but he appeals to the faithful and blind them with his fancy suits and fancy soft spoken words.

I personally don't care if Chavez and Castro are doing the wild thing down in Havana, as long as it doesn't affect the US.

shame on you

Religion, politics and power are the best thing if you want to make money.



[edit on 23-8-2005 by marg6043]

[edit on 23-8-2005 by marg6043]

Well the VP of Venezuela has now chimed in on this issue

— Venezuela's vice president accused religious broadcaster Pat Robertson on Tuesday of making "terrorist statements" by suggesting that American agents assassinate President Hugo Chavez.
Vice President Jose Vicente Rangel said Venezuela was studying its legal options, adding that how Washington responds to Robertson's comments would put its anti-terrorism policy to the test.
"The ball is in the U.S. court, after this criminal statement by a citizen of that country," Rangel told reporters. "It's huge hypocrisy to maintain this discourse against terrorism and at the same time, in the heart of that country, there are entirely terrorist statements like those."

Venezuela Slams Robertson Over Remarks

I hope that they will be able to sue Robertson, maybe it will help to reign him and his in!

Here is CBS' take on it
CBS

[edit on 23-8-2005 by kenshiro2012]

I was wondering when it was coming to get this far, a person with the public profile as Pat can not be gone unnoticed with hateful comments like that.

Perhaps the "Christian coalition" can spare some of their cash to pay for damages.

Or . . . Pat can sell his horses.

[edit on 23-8-2005 by marg6043]

... how Washington responds to Robertson's comments would put its anti-terrorism policy to the test.

That should be real interesting.

"The ball is in the U.S. court, after this criminal statement by a citizen of that country," Rangel told reporters.

I heard on cnn (who isn't happy with Robertson, either) that what he did was actually illegal. I'm not sure of the actual crime, though. Anyone?

"It's huge hypocrisy to maintain this discourse against terrorism and at the same time, in the heart of that country, there are entirely terrorist statements like those."

Somebody had to say it.

Robertson is an extremist leader. He doesn't represent the real Christian teachings. He's leading a movement of radical Christianity in a very similar way to another radical religious movement I've been hearing so much about.


[edit on 23-8-2005 by Benevolent Heretic]

Actually by labeling Chavez as a terrorist and if Robertson does not have proof to back up his claims then yes it would be illegal. Libel

Would not the inciting of someone's death be considered a threat? Roberts is calling on the assassination of a politicians's death for Pete's sake. That may not incite most people who have some sense, but some poor nutto confusing Pat's words with the voice of god might actually run off and do it, believing it to be the right thing.

It is morally, spirtitually and now apparantly legally wrong as well.

I'm glad Venezuela is fighting back. That makes two thumbs up this week for Venezuela.

I love it when it is suggested that killing the enemy is "murder". Chavez is partly responsible for the deaths of a lot of people in the Americas, but since it is for the spread of communism, I suppose that'll not be targeted by you guys, right? Hypocrites.

Now, let's look at something Chavez said, and lets see if he has more he'd like to say, but knows better than to say it:

"The grand destroyer of the world, and the greatest threat ... is represented by U.S. imperialism," Chavez said.

Notice, he didn't say U.S. Emperialism in a definitive manner, but simply says it is represented. Could it be that Chavez merely targets the U.S. in a symbolic manner, but knows that it is the "Them" who is in control of the U.S. as well as the rest of the West and even some former states?

Don't get me wrong, I do not support communism or the Chavez dirtbag, but could it be that there is more on his mind that would be interesting to hear?

I don't know Thomas but one thing is to target somebody directly and another one make a coment about a nation.

US has done many negatives coments about Venezuela and Chavez and viseversa but what pat did was to target Chavez individualy.

I think the whole thing is hilarious because it comes from Pat mouth itself.

[edit on 23-8-2005 by marg6043]

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
Chavez is partly responsible for the deaths of a lot of people in the Americas, but since it is for the spread of communism, I suppose that'll not be targeted by you guys, right?

Hypocrites.

I hate to point out the obvious, but Bush is responsible for the deaths of a lot of people too (many Americans), but since it is for the spread of 'democracy and freedom', I suppose that'll not be targeted by you, right?

That isn't even the point. Why do 'we' as a nation think we can go around threatening a democratically elected leader (by a larger margin than Bush) who isn't a threat to us? So he says bad things about us. So what?

I don't know a lot about Chavez (I'm working on it), but I'd like to know what right we have to control what this guy does... or says.

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
I love it when it is suggested that killing the enemy is "murder".

as·sas·si·nate ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-ss-nt)
tr.v. as·sas·si·nat·ed, as·sas·si·nat·ing, as·sas·si·nates
To murder (a prominent person) by surprise attack, as for political reasons.

Hypocrites.

I'd come to the same conclusion regardless of which "man of God" called for assassination (murder).

The term assassinate is used here because we are not at war with Venezuela. I would have different thoughts about bin Laden, for example.



[edit on 23-8-2005 by jsobecky]

BH, throwing around the word "Democratically" doesn't go far with me. Not considering a democracy is nothing but mob control under military rule.

AS far as "assassination being the targeting of one specific individual, so? Lookit, at one time I was considering going back into the military, and the only MOS they'd talk to me about was special ops. I wasn't sure about this idea for moral reasons, so I went and talked to the CJ chairman of the university I was attending. He said, "Did I ever, say, cross into Cambodia, get past the sleeping dogs and sentry guards, slip into a NVA general's house, message his throat with my knife without waking up his wife and then leave? Sure. In the next office waiting for me is a friend who was also in Vietnam, but was a bomber pilot. For him to do the same thing, the wife, sentry guards, dogs and possibly villagers would have been killed, too. Which do you think is the more moral way to do it?"

He had an interesting point.

Well I have a friend who's spent some time working for the World Bank in Bolivia ... and there are some sketchy things going on in recent time ... apparently funds from Chavez have been traced to payments to native Bolivians just before each of their "protests" that have led to the resignation of the now ex-president of Bolivia ... so he's been doing some covert action on the side in spite of his claimed innocence.

I think what the headline news is making him out to be is a bit over what he actually said (taken out of context). I believe what he is expressing is actually a frustration with an unwritten policy in the Western world (dominated by Christian and Catholic teachings which preach the value of life and Thou Shalt Not Kill, and so on) with addressing the rogue nation.

Perhaps if his viewpoint had been presented in private to certain intelligence operatives in Afghanistan 15 years ago we would never had had 9/11. However, with his stature and TV image, this is a very irresponsible thing to do and say in public on many levels.

The first is that it further alienates anyone who is on the fence about whether they think the US is the infidel or not.

The second is that assasination is really not something you should debate about in public (as he implies, if it were to be done it should have been already done, and we would be reading about it as an "accident"). Now if it ever did happen it would so obviously be the US behind it and the backlash inevitable, that he has eliminated that possibility from the table.

Essentially if there really WAS such a plot on the table somewhere down there in DC, well actually, he just saved Chavez's ass.

Come to think of it, Chavez really ought to thank him for that.


I think the only way to solve this is to have a big WWF tournament somewhere perhaps in central america in an old Aztec coliseum, featuring Chavez vs. Robertson ...

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
BH, throwing around the word "Democratically" doesn't go far with me.

Ok. Granted, I don't know a lot about the situation. So what did this guy (Chavez) do to become our 'enemy'? Call us names? Tell me about the Americans who have been killed by him. I can't find anything about it.

Originally posted by grad_student
I think the only way to solve this is to have a big WWF tournament somewhere perhaps in central america in an old Aztec coliseum, featuring Chavez vs. Robertson ...

I absolutely abhor wrestling, but I would pay for a ring-side seat!

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
I love it when it is suggested that killing the enemy is "murder". Chavez is partly responsible for the deaths of a lot of people in the Americas, but since it is for the spread of communism, I suppose that'll not be targeted by you guys, right?

Hypocrites.

Chavez is not our enemy, unless you are of the PNAC stripe, then yeah, he's an enemy because he stands against hegemony as practiced by the NeoCons.
Also, where are you getting this "spreading communism" crap!?! Venezuela is as socialist as most Western European countries and if you look at Chavez's reason d'etre, it was in DIRECT response to a completely corrupt OLIGARCHY.

Venezeula
Now, let's look at something Chavez said, and lets see if he has more he'd like to say, but knows better than to say it:

"The grand destroyer of the world, and the greatest threat ... is represented by U.S. imperialism," Chavez said.

Notice, he didn't say U.S. Emperialism in a definitive manner, but simply says it is represented. Could it be that Chavez merely targets the U.S. in a symbolic manner, but knows that it is the "Them" who is in control of the U.S. as well as the rest of the West and even some former states?

Don't get me wrong, I do not support communism or the Chavez dirtbag, but could it be that there is more on his mind that would be interesting to hear?

Chavez is wrong in that statement....how? I'm as patriotic as the next guy, but we're out of control right now in an imperialistic sense, no doubt. And I'm not as inclined as you to say this crew are puppets to a grand scheme - they are the grand schemers personfied, not "innocence" via being controlled need be applied.

Thomas

Your avatar scares me a little. Regardless...Let me say this...

What???? I'm not thick but I don't get what your last post was about. Something about dogs and wives and knives...

Chavez is a charismatic rebel. He is vocally anti-globalist. I say some of us should study up on his politics and then we can discuss whether or not we agree with them. He is a little out there to be sure, but then so are South American politics.

Regardless of how you feel about his presidency or global policies, the call to assassinate him by some loony-bin verbally challenged individual who uses his pulpit like a shield, is wrong.

It is amazing this guy can spout on like this without landing himself in big trouble.

Maybe we can start up a conspiracy theory about how politicos are currently in league with the CIA to off Robertson before he embarrases the nation even further. (note this is a joke I am not condoning the offing of robertson).

Chavez is no threat to the US but right now he is purposely making himself heard. Venezuela is a highly visible target at the moment. Why you ask? Well Chavez is a politically shrewed, canny guy. He is shouting loud and clear from the rafters, so the US, who is currently playing russian roulette with its 'enemies' can hear his buffalo stance and either back off (the world is watching) or ignore the world (yes again) and start picking on the little guy.

This (mostly) male posturing of whose balls are bigger, is common place in most South American politics. It is a combination of swagger, bravado and boasting - what will it really mean? Only time will tell. I doubt Venezuela can afford to make a big enemy right now, but that doens't make what Roberston is doing right. Other nations are allowed to criticize and verbally reprimand other countries. Don't tell me the US is afraid of Chavez so much that it would be willing to kill him to shut him up.

Denying the US oil in front of the rest of the world is going to most likely make Bush & co go ape****. Chavez upset and angered the US with his comments last week (how dare countries think for themselves!) It was reminscent of Cuba's 'Screw you' message. Right move or wrong move? There is a thread somewhere on ATS.

Someone posted elsewhere that Cheney has also jumped into some Chavez action with both feet as well. There you have it. Never one to miss an opportunity. So...the groundwork has been laid. Bring on the attacks and smear campaign.

What does this tell us? Watch this space Venezuela. We have no gripe with you - but very soon you too will be accused of spreading your WMD to America via drugs and your *evil* socialist values. (please note socialist does not equal communist there IS a difference).


[edit on 23-8-2005 by nikelbee]

[edit on 23-8-2005 by nikelbee]

Originally posted by grad_student
I think the only way to solve this is to have a big WWF tournament somewhere perhaps in central america in an old Aztec coliseum, featuring Chavez vs. Robertson ...

PLEASE can we get the geography right if we are going to intelligently discuss this??


Aztec = Mexico = NORTH America (also known as YOUR neighbours)

Chavez= Venezuela = SOUTH America Bolivia = also in South America

Central America = AKA Nicaragua, Domincan Republic, El Salvador, Honduras... different place entirely and NO the Aztecs did not live in Central America - ever.






[edit on 23-8-2005 by nikelbee]

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
I love it when it is suggested that killing the enemy is "murder". Chavez is partly responsible for the deaths of a lot of people in the Americas, but since it is for the spread of communism, I suppose that'll not be targeted by you guys, right?

Hypocrites.

not sure whether your in favor of Pat robertsons comments or against. why is Chavez our enemy? who says he is other than pat robertson and Bush? is it because his politics may not coincide with our politics? I know he's communist, rather socialist,(not capitalist), but is he trying to make america a communist state? is it only murder if you agree with the person you're killing? I don't remember "thou shalt not kill those you agree with" in the ten commandments. It may have been implied, but without the "those you agree with" caveaut. what do you mean by hypocrites? are there people here that say kill the opponents of communism/socialism but not the proponents of communism?

I may be new here but typically, when having a discussion, people actually claim a position, not just pick at the stances of others.

ps. I don't care if you kill with an a bomb or a ruby slipper, murder is murder. one may be clean murder and the other messy murder, but whatever the adjective may be, the action is still the same.

[edit on 23-8-2005 by passengername]

I got it!!!!!!! Pat has some inside information that Chavez is financing the Muslin radicals and that he is a muslin itself and plans to spread the fundamentalist Islamic around the south American and eventually will get here at home.

Actually on a more serious note that is what Mr. Pat is saying, so lets get Chavez head off.

Now on another note Mr. Chavez said that he doesn't know Mr. Pat and that he doesn't care about him.

Originally posted by kenshiro2012
Actually by labeling Chavez as a terrorist and if Robertson does not have proof to back up his claims then yes it would be illegal. Libel

Oh, I don't think that'd be hard to prove. All you have to do is see the connection between Chavez and FARC and there you have it.

On a side note, I see that people are still quick to throw rocks at Robertson, which is ok, except they are the same people who NEVER throw any rocks at Chavcez or the lovely people he supports. Lobbing mortar rounds into a church on Sunday is ok, though, right? FARC is a good bunch of people, right?
Ok, let's look at it in a way that maybe some would understand; Someone lobbed moratar rounds into a homosexual XXXmovie arcade when it was packed with people, would that be ok? Ok then, same difference. Unless you are saying that Catholic worshippers in Colombia are of less value. If that be the case, I see why so many would stand in righteous indignation for Chavez.

my take on TC's comments:

One should never assume that a protest against the attack of one side automatically indicates support for the other.

In other words, Robertson's suggestion is despicable but that does not make me a Chavez supporter or sympathizer. Indeed, I am condemning Robertson's suggestion that the USA lower it's standards to the point of just killing off people we don't like or agree with. I see Robertson's statments as an attack on our country and our standards of decency. That means I support decency, integrity, morality, and the rule of law. And, I do not know whether Chavez supports any of those qualities but I know that Robertson's statements do not.

Edited for clarity and to clean up some really bad writing.

[edit on 24-8-2005 by Al Davison]