Neoconned Again?
…there is the argument that Iran in particular and Syria to a lesser extent are both responsible for killing “our soldiers” in Iraq. One thing that all the stories about alleged Iranian and Syrian involvement have in common is their lack of substantiating detail. The stories are light on names, dates, places, and corroborating information. Most rely on anonymous government sources or unsourced assertions that are presented as fact…
One thing EVERYBODY should know by now – any statement made in connection with this administration will be at best misleading and worse an outright lie.
[quote]lixy wrote:
I don’t know much about the guy except the Chavez assassination comment. That’s the only thing I accused him of.
[/quote]
Well, he did piss off you know who…
Israel is pulling out of a $50 million deal with US TV evangelist Pat Robertson after he said Ariel Sharon’s stroke was divine retribution…
Mr Robertson suggested on his popular TV show the stroke was a punishment for Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza.
But I imagine he felt justified in the assassination comment based on one of JINSA’s recommendations (ie; orders) just two days after 9/11…
“Revoke the Presidential Order banning assassinations” http://www.jinsa.org/articles/print.html/documentid/1262
[quote]lixy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
lixy wrote:
Gkhan wrote:
My point about Robertson is this: He’s a preacher. Until he’s commander in chief, who cares what he says?
Are you serious? You seem to just be pulling my legs.
What makes Robertson’s comments ANY different from those of Al-Zawahiri?
It’s terrorism. Plain and simple.
Because Robertson isn’t part of a terrorist organization?
Zap, do you consider his calls to assassinate a head of state are terrorism?
Shouldn’t be so hard to answer.[/quote]
As far as I know he didn’t order anyone to kill Chavez, he merely pointed out that it might be a good thing to do for the US.
It was simplistic political analysis, not terrorism.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
As far as I know he didn’t order anyone to kill Chavez, he merely pointed out that it might be a good thing to do for the US.
It was simplistic political analysis, not terrorism.
[/quote]
Simplistic analysis? Sounds more like a threat on Chavez’ life to me.
“I don’t know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we’re trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it.” – Robertson
[quote]lixy wrote: “I don’t know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we’re trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it.” – Robertson[/quote]
Thus speaks a (self proclaimed) man of God.
But this is nothing new, is it lixy? God has been calling man to kill… infidels a lot, recently. Even by bomb vests and car bombs.
So, shouldn’t Hamas, Fatah, Hezbollah… Ahmadinejad (who commands a military, by the way)… shouldn’t they all be in the same system that tries crimes in the Hague?
That is where you’d try Pat Robertson, right? I’d accept Pat to be tried for hate speech. How about all the others? They sure do have a lot more proof against them than Pat. Quid Pro Quo.
LOL, I’m just kiddin’ buddy. I know you wouldn’t hold the same litmus test to “your guys.” You don’t have an equal standard for all - blind, as it were.
[quote]kroby wrote:
Thus speaks a (self proclaimed) man of God.
But this is nothing new, is it lixy? God has been calling man to kill…[/quote]
Not my God. Only God’s got the right to take lives away, and unless someone’s breaks into your house with guns or knives, you’re not allowed to kill.
[quote]So, shouldn’t Hamas, Fatah, Hezbollah… Ahmadinejad (who commands a military, by the way)… shouldn’t they all be in the same system that tries crimes in the Hague?
That is where you’d try Pat Robertson, right? I’d accept Pat to be tried for hate speech. How about all the others? They sure do have a lot more proof against them than Pat. Quid Pro Quo.
LOL, I’m just kiddin’ buddy. I know you wouldn’t hold the same litmus test to “your guys.” You don’t have an equal standard for all - blind, as it were. [/quote]
I addressed that in this very thread. I think it was GKhan (or maybe Sloth) who asked the same question. Try reading my answer there.
A Christian evangelist more Zionist than the butcher of Sabra and Shatila. Real scary stuff.
[/quote]
What you don’t understand is that these Christian evangelists support Israel, not for the love of Jews, but because in Revelations it says that the Jews have to be in the land of Israel when Jesus makes his second coming. They feel they are doing their part to user in the end-times.
Lixy, I read somewhere that some Muslims think that the end-times will begin when the Jews are KICKED OUT of Israel. If this is true, it makes an interesting couterdiction.
I read the link provided. I guess if you are anti-american and anti-Christian, you can make any arguement stick.
As far as Robertson goes, one would have to figure the extent of his violation of law, if in fact he did violate any law.
He basically gave an opinion. Robertson did not say he was going to personally, or have any of his Christian right, take out Chavez.
How is it that Iran’s president is given a pass and his words were mis-translated, taken out of context, he was just joking, not serious, ect, and Robertson, who was probably just saying it for ratings, is taken dead serious?
If some of Robertson’s followers are found in Caracas with suicide belts outside of the capital, then I think you might have something.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
What you don’t understand is that these Christian evangelists support Israel, not for the love of Jews, but because in Revelations it says that the Jews have to be in the land of Israel when Jesus makes his second coming. They feel they are doing their part to user in the end-times. [/quote]
Oh, I understand that alright.
What I don’t understand, is that an adherent to the teachings of Jesus would support the repression and horrors of the Israeli military machine.
It’s nothing more than a Hadith. And it quotes “the conquest of Jerusalem” not the “Jews […] kicked out of Israel”.
Well, they’re clearly not religious but they are Americans.
[quote]As far as Robertson goes, one would have to figure the extent of his violation of law, if in fact he did violate any law.
He basically gave an opinion. Robertson did not say he was going to personally, or have any of his Christian right, take out Chavez. [/quote]
He is a prominent public figure with millions of followers. What he says matters.
His opinion not only condones murder but actively encourages it under the guise of patriotism. I consider that a violation of law.
Not at all the same thing. Mahmoud himself said the speech was misunderstood and mistranslated. He clarified it later. Pat stood by his call for the assassination of Chavez.
I can remember a guy carrying a coup on the democratically elected regime, the day after he visited the white house. Washington was among the first to congratulate him.
What I don’t understand, is that an adherent to the teachings of Jesus would support the repression and horrors of the Israeli military machine.
…
His opinion not only condones murder but actively encourages it under the guise of patriotism. I consider that a violation of law.
…
I can remember a guy carrying a coup on the democratically elected regime, the day after he visited the white house. Washington was among the first to congratulate him.[/quote]
I could say the same thing about many followers of the Koran and the terrorism network.
What he said was quoted above. He did not tell his followers to kill Chavez, nor did he say he was going to do it himself. He said he thinks it should be done. I’m not sure if that is even a threat.
Which would make you feel more threatened? Someone saying:
I’m gonna kick your butt.
Someone is going to kick your butt.
Someone should kick your butt.
or
I should kick your butt.
Saying someone should kick your butt sounds more like a comment or observation to me.
Maybe we need an attorney to take this up.
As far as the other gentleman who was congratulated by Washington. I’m strictly speaking of Robertson and his followers here. So until one of those is caught carrying out an actual al-qaeda style terrorist attack, you’ve got nothing.