User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 8/23/2005 7:06:47 AM EDT
[#1]
Oh, I got it LONG ago! Remember why I'm even here. The only reason this is such a story is because Robertson said it. If some Jew or atheist or Shintoist or any other non-Christian had said the same thing, no one would give a rip.  ETA: Actually, that's not true, since Chavez is a communist in anything but name. As such, ANY call to remove him would be met with derision. As we all know, Communism is THE preferred method of governance amongst the intelligencia. Now, if Robertson (even as a Christian) had said we should assassinate W, then he'd be a shoe-in for the 2008 DNC presidential nomination.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2005 7:08:07 AM EDT
[#2]
Once again the Christian bashers show their lack of understanding of the Christian religion. The commandment "Thou shalt not kill" does not mean that Christians should stand around waiting like sheep to be slaughtered. I suggest that those condemning Pat for this read the Old Testament. David, Solomon, and a whole host of others made war in defense of Israel and were not condemned for it. What Pat is advocating is that the U.S. make war upon Venezuela by assassinating its leader. Such a war would be just in my opinion given the nature of the threat, and thus I don't see any biblical problem with Pat urging the U.S. government to take such action.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2005 7:09:05 AM EDT
[#3]
Chavez isn't the enemy de jour. For years he has been making belligerent statements AND acts against the US. Such as holding a summit with the worst offenders of the middle east in his nation and talking about the destruction of US power. Where I come from, we call that hostile behavior.
I think if you will do a little research, you will hear Chavez's own words and will find out that Pat Robertson doesn't call for very many assasinations.
When do I become your enemy? When I tell you I am going to go buy a gun and kill you? When you see me buying the gun? When you see me loading the gun? When I aim the gun at you? When I pull the trigger? When the bullet hits you? Chavez is a serious potential threat. We don't have to wait to get shot to defend ourselves. He seems to be spending a lot of time speaking like and acting like our enemy for someone who isn't our enemy. |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2005 7:09:23 AM EDT
[#4]
.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2005 7:12:23 AM EDT
[#5]
By George I think he's got it. I don't care what he does or what he says or does, assassinating a foreign political leader that we are not at war with is a really shitty thing to do outside the bounds of a civilized and decent nation. If you want to take Chavez out, do it the right way, above board and legit. And yes, Robertson is acting like a Mullah. Declaring individuals as enemies and calling for their deaths? Does this sound familiar? |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2005 7:12:27 AM EDT
[#6]
I'm wondering how many of the outraged here would sit idly by while their neighbor (who just happens to be sitting on the valve to their only source of water) made threats to cut their water off and send people over to kill their children?
 Or would they draw down on the SOB and take him out quietly one night when no one was looking? Yeah. That's what I thought. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2005 7:14:32 AM EDT
[#7]
Regardless, We have enough people preaching to kill our enemies and I have no problem with this.
But where's the balance?? I would rather our Christian preachers stick to preaching about turning the other cheek, so I can at least hear an alternative while we are slaughtering our enemies. What would Christ have said or done?? Isn't that what Christianity is supposed to be about? A peaceful place where we can achieve balance and retrospection??? The guy is an asshole and a total loss as a Christian preacher. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2005 7:14:58 AM EDT
[#8]
Well, then I guess ARFCOM is a hive of mullah-dom, then. How many people here called for the death of that asswipe Osama, or his asswipe brethren Huusein, or any of their friends, or the asshat who runs ForesakeTheTroops, or that ex-Marine protesting before the war, or Johnny Taliban, or illegal aliens, or.......
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2005 7:15:25 AM EDT
[#9]
Chavez is a classic Commie dictator. His popularity is much like Castro's "popularity". A strike at Chavez alone wouldn't solve much. But a strike that kills Chavez and a few of his top henchmen combined with dissident action on the ground might indeed improve things. Remember something folks: A lot of Nazis fled to Venezuela and took up apprentices there. Those apprentices are now in positions of government power. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2005 7:15:28 AM EDT
[#10]
Because nukes aren't the only issue, I doubt it will affect their "love" for us much at all. It may, however, increase their respect.
There is a good chance that if Chavez were to suddenly "take ill" that the people of Venezuela would indeed elect a more mainstream leader. Chavez's support isn't that strong. His weakness is revealed by the domestic policies he has made that strip power from large swaths of society. Hell, even the police there have been disarmed. Chavez takes over police |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2005 7:15:53 AM EDT
[#11]
Agreed. Doesn't change the fact that he's RIGHT on this issue. Chavez SHOULD be taken out. NOW. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2005 7:18:11 AM EDT
[#12]
As long as it's ok for anyone who perceives the POTUS as hostile or a threat to whack HIM, then, hey, what's the problem? Sort of mafiaesque, but whatever. Robertson's last 2 lines are the only thing in his diatribe that has a kernel of truth. HUNKER DOWN, JORGE
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2005 7:18:36 AM EDT
[#13]
So it is more morally correct to conduct a war where thousands of innocents are killed is preferable to shooting one man? Wowsers.
What did George Bush do when 9/11 happened? Declared individuals as enemies and called for their deaths. Puh-lease. If Robertson had called for the assasination of Hillary Clinton, you would have a point. But he didn't do that, and you don't have a point. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2005 7:19:19 AM EDT
[#14]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2005 7:20:09 AM EDT
[#15]
Exactly. I have noticed that certain people on ARFCOM throw the "mullah" word around rather casually. It is either the product of ignorance or diseased thinking. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2005 7:20:09 AM EDT
[#16]
Well, let me apologize for making you feel insulted. And I suppose any quote from the bible I offer can be taken out of context – I’m not an expert like you - but fortunately this isn’t the religion forum (it’s the GD BTW) so I can’t get banned for it. But anyway – didn’t we try and take out Fidel once? How’d that work out in the big picture? I’d say that attempt was one big fuck up because it did nothing but solidify his stranglehold on that poor country. Am I wrong? Chavez has already survived one coup – one which the US foolishly (that’s right I said foolishly, my patriotism isn’t so great that I’m blind when our government makes a mistake) embraced way too early. Chavez being removed for mere days had what affect on the Venezuelans attitudes toward the US? Good or bad? And what will be accomplished when we “take him out”? Poof! Instant Canada? Just add lead? I know how I felt about Iraq when Saddam plotted to "take out" Bush Sr. You want another Fidel south of our border so bad then? Just keep listening to your TV hero. Let's follow the same failed plan. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2005 7:21:19 AM EDT
[#17]
What? You think they don't try? Have you ever dealt with the Secret Service when the President is rolling through town? Their seriousness and professionalism tells me everything I need to know about threats faced by the POTUS. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2005 7:24:01 AM EDT
[#18]
Exactly. I still LMAO every time I hear some idiot say that going after foreign leaders will simply make ours targets. You mean they're NOT now? You mean that fourth plane was SUPPOSED to hit an empty field in Pennsylvania?  This is the same crowd of morons who squealed like children back in the 1980's that home-porting the nuclear-armed USS NEW JERSEY in NYC would make the city a target for a Soviet nuclear strike. Rush is right. We cannot trust these collossal DOLTS with our national security. They just don't have a clue.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2005 7:24:21 AM EDT
[#19]
It tells me nothing- yea or nay. They would do their job to the utmost if he were locked up in Cheyenne Mtn.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2005 7:24:23 AM EDT
[#20]
You were being a jerk, and it was a deliberate personal attack. I can disagree with you without alleging that you are a bloodthirsty mongrel. It is just a darn shame you can't do the same.
The bay of pigs was leaked, and Castro was ready. The op was blown from the start and had no chance of success. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2005 7:26:12 AM EDT
[#21]
I'm ok with using assassination as a tool of state. I'm ok with someone voicing that opinion on national television.
I'm not ok with a preacher voicing such an opinion from the pulpit, which is all his show is for him. Right message, wrong place and person. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2005 7:27:36 AM EDT
[#22]
And let's not forget that the Saint of the Left, JFK, left the Cuban exiles (among them my uncle, who was the chief medical officer of Brigade 2506) stranded on the fucking beaches after NOT sending the promised air support. Don't get me FUCKING started! 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2005 7:30:10 AM EDT
[#23]
First off: Anyone who has read my posts know that I vehemently detest communists and socialists and Chavez in particular. What is left of my family still in Venezuela have no love for him and voted against him in the referendum and are suffering for it (my cousin was a Venezuelan naval officer that was forced out because of her anti-Chavista feelings). My godmother is still cussing "Jaime Carter" out over his backing of that bullshit-rigged referendum.
That being said: The dude is the lawfully elected president of a sovereign and democratic nation. The USA "Taking Him Out" would be an illegal, immoral and reprehensible act that will only solidify anti-american sentiment around the globe and would prove to the world that we are, indeed, a threat to the security of other countries. 1) Venezuelans voted the fucker in and it's up to Venezuelans to vote/kick the fucker out. 2) People get the government that they deserve. 3) It's Venezuela's oil and Venezuela can do with it what it will. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2005 7:32:07 AM EDT
[#24]
So, if the leader of France decides that GWB is just too much of a pain in the ass, then you would be OK with him calling a hit on GWB? IIRC, the idea was dropped by the US Government some time ago because other people might think it is a good idea, too. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2005 7:33:06 AM EDT
[#25]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2005 7:33:39 AM EDT
[#26]
A very laudable position. Remember it when gas is $20 a gallon and Chavez is sending guerrillas all over South America AND HERE to spread glorious revolution. Hitler was elected, too, you know. So was Hussein, with 100% of the vote! So has Castro! Let's hear it for free elections! Get your family out while you still can. Trust me. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2005 7:33:44 AM EDT
[#27]
So "Thou shalt not kill" means "That shalt not kill unless you think it is a good idea." And make up your own standards for what is a good idea. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2005 7:34:51 AM EDT
[#28]
"Thou shalt not murder." Read the rest of the thread. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2005 7:36:09 AM EDT
[#29]
The problem comes when/if Chavez has a hand in something that directly harms US Citizens. His rhetoric and belligerence are one thing, but if he acts on any of it in a way that sheds US blood, it will no longer be the Venezuelan people's problem alone. I would rather not see the Venezuelan people harmed because the asshat they elected didn't know when to quit. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2005 7:37:31 AM EDT
[#30]
As opposed to Pat Robertson's call to nuke the State Department, I suppose. Hmmmm, seems to me that if I had said any such thing, I would probably be typing this from inside some prison cell right now. |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2005 7:38:18 AM EDT
[#31]
And assassinating some foreign leader would not be a "murder", I suppose. |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2005 7:38:39 AM EDT
[#32]
No, "Thou shalt not kill" means that a very specific type of violence is against God's law, as even a child can look and see that God turned right around and told the Israelites to make war just a short time later. The Bible does not, has not, and never will condemn the use of ALL violence. It simply teaches that violent action is to be resorted to only under extreme circumstances and only against those who pose a legitimate threat. Had you studied the Bible, you would know this. Systematic Theology is a wonderful thing. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2005 7:38:54 AM EDT
[#33]
Find me anyone who is defending that statement in this thread.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2005 7:39:46 AM EDT
[#34]
That's my philosophy...If you gonna' shoot 'em, then shoot 'em well! |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2005 7:39:52 AM EDT
[#35]
Well, until he does, and as long as he is only talking (whatever he says), you would be going to jail under US law if you killed a person under such circumstances. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2005 7:40:26 AM EDT
[#36]
Context, son. Context. Was Pat Robertson SERIOUSLY advocating detonating a nuclear device at the State Department? I think not. Besides, I have heard far worse comments come out of the mouths of people like Paul Begala, and nobody gets all pissy about that..... I wonder why?? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2005 7:40:39 AM EDT
[#37]
But it's OK because I'm over that now. But morally, as in a system of ideas of right and wrong conduct (and since the word appears in your sig line) - why aren't we taking out the leaders of China and Russia? In addition to their support of nuclear programs in many small islamic states, they also sort of support anti-US terrorist factions within areas of their control by failing to allow the US complete access to remove these pockets of international criminals (I honestly believe Russia should just look the other way and let us send in some teams in to erase some of those assholes in Chechnya). Threat. Threat. Threat. Threat. Everywhere a threat. The less we assassinate the less safe we are. Am I gripping the essence of 700 Club diplomacy here or not? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2005 7:40:44 AM EDT
[#38]
No. It means that morality isn't a simple concept that can be completely covered by "thou shalt not kill." Like any other principle it has exceptions and caveats and doctrines indicating when killing is considered murder and is verboten, and when it is considered a necessary evil. Just as the First Amendment doesn't prevent the government from going after kiddie porn, "Thou Shalt Not Kill" doesn't prohibit a state from defending itself from its enemies. Since you, however, appear to take a strict literal interpretation of this commandment, do you think that a U.S. Marine can be a soldier and still be a Christian?
|
||
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2005 7:41:40 AM EDT
[#39]
Let's split your list up shall we? Osama, Hussein, Uday, Qusay, the Baathist regime in Iraq, Johnny Taliban were all 100% bona fide enemies that actually attacked the US and US interests. Therefore, we are at war with them, and calling for their deaths is NOT advocating murder. Forsakethetroops guy, a Marine protester (not sure who that is you're referring to off the top of my head) are absolutely not fair game, and anyone that would call for their deaths is advocating murder. Illegal aliens is a 3rd category that's off to the side. They're obviously criminals, and calling for their deaths could be construed as a very extreme sense of justice, but I'm gonna go with probably "murder" as well just because it's kinda far out there. The only thing that keeps the people from ARFCOM from being mullahs in the cases of the latter 2 groups in my opinion is that they're not religious leaders with influence over the faithful. Just because some asshole on AR15.com calls for somebody's death doesn't make it okay. And, BTW, Robertaon's perfectly entitled to say what he wants - just as I'm entitled to draw the obvious comparsion between him and the headchopping mad mullahs. As far as I'm concerned, anybody that wanted to align themselves in a civilized and morally straight manner would take the first step as to call Robertson what he is - a wacko and a CHINO (CHristian In Name Only). |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2005 7:41:46 AM EDT
[#40]
That is the stupidist thing I have ever read on this board. You are trying to compare Christians who want to erradicate evil to Muslims that kill innocents. Thinking like that will make us loss this war. Un-fucking-believable!!!!! Sgatr15 |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2005 7:41:47 AM EDT
[#41]
That was in response to a comment about the use of the word "mullahs". If Pat is saying things like that, then "mullah" is about the nicest thing you could say about him. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2005 7:42:35 AM EDT
[#42]
If he is a direct threat to your country (and Chavez is), then NO. WHY do we always have to just sit back and let the tyrants rise to power and start slaughtering innocents by the bushel (sometimes for DECADES) before the light bulb comes on and we say, "You know, maybe we should have taken this guy out earlier?" Churchill saw Hitler. No one listened. Lots of folks saw Castro. No one listened. Most STILL don't listen. Lots of folks saw Mao. No one listened. LOTS of folks see Chavez. HELLO?
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2005 7:42:44 AM EDT
[#43]
Local law and foreign policy are different things. They are different for a reason. If this guy continues his talk AND his cozying up to the enemies of the US, AND continues to lay the groundwork for making US citizens bleed, then we don't have to wait until he actually cuts us to do something about it. To borrow your local law analogy: If someone has the means to harm you If someone has the opportunity to harm you If someone manifests the intent to harm you Then generally you are justified in using lethal force against them. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2005 7:43:11 AM EDT
[#44]
What should be done about Chavez's sponsoring of communist insurgency and cocaine production/smuggling in Colombia and Bolivia?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2005 7:44:29 AM EDT
[#45]
If Christians are really trying to eradicate evil, then shouldn't they put some clear dividing lines on when a killing is justified? You know, just like American law that says that words alone are never an excuse for even punching someone, let alone killing them. Now, if you can show that he was involved in 9/11 or some other act of war against the US, that's a different story. But, as far as I know, no such evidence has come forward yet. |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2005 7:44:33 AM EDT
[#46]
Never said you weren't.
Okay. He's a wacko and a CHINO (CHristian In Name Only). He's still right on Chavez.
|
||
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2005 7:46:04 AM EDT
[#47]
Face it..the ONLY way to have long term peace and stability in South America is if the USA colonize ALL of it. Some people just gotta be controlled. Woirked for Hong Knog. SGatr15 |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2005 7:46:06 AM EDT
[#48]
By that standard, we would be at war with a good chunk of the entire world, most of the time. And, no, that isn't the standard under international law, either. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2005 7:46:31 AM EDT
[#49]
If I had my way, different people would be running China and Russia. But my magic wand is at the shop.
Ugh. So now we are going to attack ol' Pat because he isn't advocating enough assasinations?? It is one thing to shoot a tinhorn dictator in South America who is cooperating with the enemy. But when the guys on the other side of the table have nukes, the game changes. Which is why China and Iran want nukes so bad. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2005 7:46:43 AM EDT
[#50]
Except, of course, that Robertson doesn't have a few battalions of idiots willing to go do his bidding. Unlike the REAL mullahs! Robertson is an asshat, a moron, a loon, and several other negative adjectives. He is NOT a mullah. He is NOT advocating killing someone simply because he doesn't believe in Christ. He's called for the assassination of a direct and growing theat to this country and this hemisphere. Big difference. |
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
