Extremist Christian Mullah issues Fatwa against President of Venezuela
 

Here's MSM recent report about this "evil" enemy of the United States, and presumably, of the Christian Coalition.......
The following quotebox contains a link to the website of the documentary film about the 2002 coup in Venzuela, and a link to the interview with the Irish film makers who witnessed and filmed the coup events as they unfolded.......
And now comes mullah Pat.....with his murderous rhetoric....can anyone tell me where the extremist, "Christian Right", ends....and the Bushista "Oil Vampires", begin ?
I post this to inform you of your Bush government, at work, this time in pursuit of control of oil resources in our own hemisphere. IMO, Robertson's fatwa is choreographed to coincide with Rumsfeld's trip to South America.
Bush and Robertson appear to share the same, "adoring faithful" political base. These are busy people....these Bushistas. Your won't find them toppling leaders of countries who do not have large potential petroleum exports, or who do not control the rights of way for the passage of petroleum (Afgfhanistan is the best example of the latter category.....)

It's gonna get worse, folks. Wait till you see what happens when the foreigners who control large pools of oil no longer accept the worthless, green, fiat script that the US prints up in ever growing quantities to purchase
and then burn 25 percent of the daily world oil supply. I suspect that we are only seeing a dress rehersal, in Iraq.....Iran....or where ever these murderous Christian, oil addicts set their sights on. Watch out, Norway !!!
<h4>Bring 'em On !!!</h4>

Dude, you serously need to get a girlfriend.

Pat Robertson - there are millions who think he's bang on point, everytime he opens his yap. That's the scary part.

If possible Dick.....I would very much appreciate the edit of your post, perhaps to add some form of intellect pertaining to the topic. As it is, I can only see it as an attack on another member.....or an attempt to flirt.

...an attempt to flirt... good one.


I heard this on the radio this morning. Regardless of how the US administration feels about Chavez is this really any way for a Christian Minister to act?

Well, he does have purty lips.

Here ya go. This post should fit in with the "groupthink" policy here........

It appears that the Bushistas will stop at nothing to achieve their goal of world domination. I'll bet that Rove is giving Chimpy a banana over this one! This is clear evidence that that the Bush cabal is in cahoots with the some skeevy South American dude. Thanks for pointing this travesty out , host!

Robertson...Fatwa...coreographed...

I actually took the time to read through most of that.

Host, to say that you are reaching with the imagery you use is...kind.

While I appreciate that there can be Christian fanatics that kill abortion doctors, I consider it to be the height of denial and insult to make a comparision when there are real Muslim clerics who regularly tell their followers what you and I would consider unbelievable lies (e.g. the jews drink the blood of muslim babies, muslims had nothing to do with 9/11, etc.), tell them that it is a great thing to go and blow themselves up on crowded buses, (and even try to get adolescents involved in blowing themselves up) and that it is a good and holy thing to kill Americans anywhere they find them because they are...Americans.

As to Chavez, I am trying to decide from your voluminous articles if you think that he really is a great guy vs the evil Bush. Chavez, best buddies with Castro who is the plague of Cuba.

So point blank question, do you consider yourself a communist/socialist, Host?

Uhh, a coupe of points, host:

1. What leads you to believe that US currency will become worthless? I know the dollar has slipped quite a bit in the recent past in comparison with the Euro, but it was hardly worth getting worked up about.

2. Christians aren't the only ones in America who use oil. To the best of my knowledge, even American Jews burn gasoline in their cars and not the muslim baby blood that is so often assumed to fill the tanks. ;) Come to think of it, American Muslims, as the fastest-growing religious group in the United States, are probably the fastest-growing group of oil consumers, as well. It seems the Mohammedistas thirst for oil will never be satisfied! :D

3. The United States is not going to invade Norway. Or Iran. Or any other country in the next, say, ten years. Bush will be long gone before the next invasion could even conceivably occur.

4. While I appreciate and respect your right to express your opinions in this forum, I feel that providing a series of long quotations from disparate news sources and weakly grasping at links between them is not the most effective way to foster stimulating debate.

That was a great rebuttal. Seriously.

For me, my only issue with this is as I stated above... "is this really any way for a Christian Minister to act?"

Here's what he said:
"If he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it. It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war."

RangerDick, I don't see any groupthink policy here, just one person being rude. But if there is a common standard of behaviour, and you don't like it, just go somewhere else - it's not difficult.

Anyways, I think you've missed an interesting aspect of host's post - he makes the point that here is a popular religious leader, publicly calling for the assassination, by the government, of the leader of a sovereign nation. I remember seeing a post in here a few weeks back that was calling for the West to militarily move in on foreign religious leaders because they were daring to complain about Western foreign policy - and here we have a prominent American doing exactly the same thing with apparent impunity.

If nothing else, it suggests that much of the fine moralising and high-grounding used as justification for the state-sponsored killing of large numbers of foreigners are no more than cynical techniques used to gain public support.

I agree that the focus here should be on Robertson alone. It really doesn't matter what you think of Chavez or what you think of the Bush administration's foreign policy.

Here we have perhaps the most powerful Religious Right leader in the country advocating the assassination of a Democratically elected foreign leader.
This is a man who purports to be a Christian, a man who asserts a moral superiority over those who don't interpret the Bible the way he does.

The temptation is to dismiss him as an extremist, but this is a man who came close to winning the Republican Presidential nomination in 1988.
This is not the first time he's made outrageous statements like this and yet he continues to hold tremendous power in the Republican Party. I think he is a good example of how extreme the Republicans have become.

He obviously hasn't put much thought into that statement. The words "power vaccume" come to mind, and other fun phrases too like "civil war" and if anyone ever noticed we killed the guy possibly "world war".

and what do you think he is?
Is he the evil Chavez who wants to spread the terrible idea of socialism around the world?

I don't think robertson has as much power as people believe. He's good on TV, makes controversial statements, and gets ratings. Other than that, there isn't much to this guy.

He has a pulpit that reaches millions. While he may not weild the power of office he does wield the power of public opinion. I don't think it is wise to underestimate this...

You never know what people will believe, follow, or find offensive. A couple months back Arnold Schwartzeneger called in to Howard Stern and agreed with him that blowing up the moon would be a good idea (a joke obviously) and went on to say that it was a good thing because it would stop women's menstrual cycles (part of the joke, and of course not true). THe whole next week it was allover the news and people were all upset about him wanting to blow up the moon and saying they hated all women. :hmm:

Now take another look at this guy. He holds a position that to some people holds some power over them. To them he is the voiceof their religion (or atleast one of them). And for many people when anyone from their religion comes along and says something they'll usually believe it. Thats just the way it is, and has always been. So now there's who knows how many people out there who think killing this guy (or anyone) is a good idea.

Sure, he has some people that follow him, agree with everything he says. But so does every public figure. Howard stern probably reached more people when he was on radio that robertson does.

I'm christian. I classify myself as right-wing. But robertson doesn't speak for me. And I never hear his name brought up in coversation or discussion unless it is on this board. Thats why I think his influence is over-blown, because the only influence of his I ever see is detractors posting on the TFP about how robertson is a nut.

I thought Host's choice of articles carefully laid out the background information to support his theory.

- Chavez Gives Land Titles to the Indigenous: Chavez is an elected president that is actually fulfilling his campaign promises. He is widely popular for that reason.

- CHAVEZ: INSIDE THE COUP: The US was quietly funding Chavez' opponent prior to the election believing him to be more amenable to our oil interests. When that failed and Chavez nationalized the oil resources, a media driven "coup" took place. Host then provides information on why the coup failed. It is reasonable to suspect there are US fingerprints on that effort as well. What else could the Bush administration say other than "ridiculous?"

-Televangelist Calls for Chavez' Death:A christian commentator calls for the assassination of an elected president. I don't believe there is a christian term for this reprehensible statement, but "fatwa" would apply.

The Bush administration has a very effective media machine and perhaps Robertson is a part of it. His bombast at the same that Rumsfeld is in SA may just be coincidence. The US clearly has a history of interfering with soveign governments to protect our oil interests so I don't find Host's argument to be without merit.

For the record, I am a fiscal conservative and a social progressive.

Robertson's show reaches a large audience....

Howard Stern reportedly reaches about 8 million listeners each week. That might have been before ClearChannel dropped him. I'm not sure how those numbers compare, but I bet Robertson reaches more people, considering the international audience.

Then, you might want to consider that Howard Stern's idea of violence is whacking off really hard.

Robertson, on the other hand, has been known to meddle in Central and South American affairs before, and he always comes up on the side of the non-communists, regardless of how murderous they are. He's been known to make friends with them. He once called Slavadoran death squad leader Roberto D'Aubuisson a "very nice fellow."

A million a day - 8 million a week, comparable...

Either way, hes part of the problem. We fight religious extremists every day, and while roberston isn't a terrorist, he's even less of a PR spokesman.

Are you willing to come out and say that he was wrong, and that you don't condone that kind of sentiment?

This probably has a lot more to do with Chavez's refusal to follow the WTO's policies and his attempts to create a NATO-style alliance with South American countries than him simply being a leftist.

He thumbed his nose at the WTO and is trying to unite South America to serve as opposition to American influence.

We might write off Pat Robertson as a whackjob nutcase, but he's a lot more informed than he is often given credit for. He knows exactly what's going on with Chavez and is well aware that most of his followers have no clue what Chavez is doing aside from the fact that he's a leftist and therefore bad.

Robertson is probably very well educated with what's going on in South America right now and knows full well that nearly all of his followers are not. He uses terms like terrorism and extremism because he knows his followers will react in a satisfyingly rabid manner to accusations of extremism.

Since most Americans are either ill-informed or unconcerned with Venezuela, he knows he would not get much reaction if his argument focused on the FTAA, WTO, IMF, SATO, or any other acronym-based issue involving Chavez.

uh. yeah. I've never been a robertson supporter. I didn't think I ever implied that I was.

Where was it implied that he even might condone it?
Oh, unless it was the part about his being a conservative Christian?
I guess I don't see the point. Or...I'm afraid...I might.

It's implied by the fact that, so far, Stevo hasn't said, I agree. This is not be be condoned.

Just looking for clarification before we get back to bickering over who has a greater audience -- Pat Robertson or Howard Stern.


(in other word's if he can agree to that then most of us would probably be satisfied)

Bill, I don't think I implied that there was any such implication.

Call me old fashioned, but if something isn't addressed, I like to ask the question of the person directly before making any assumptions one way or the other.

ok. i agree. this isn't to be condoned.

now who has the larger audience? robertson or stern? we need to know this or we will get nowhere.

:lol:


(apparently laughing out loud doesn't make the post long enough)

I'm starting to smell the echoes of Howard Dean here: "The Republicans are basically a white, Christian party."(Meaning, of course, that they all think alike, look alike, and plot evil things.)

It's the most fun when you hear this sentiment from people who emphatically proclaim that not all Muslims are alike.

Without a clue toward the irony.

Marv... I don't see that at all.

Stevo, instead of right off the bat stating that he thought Roberstson was off base (read: wrong) decided to take the stance that Robertson was really just small potatoes because not many people pay any attention to him.

I think it was important to bring it back on track and just ask him outright if he thought Robertson was right or not.

I felt that was all that was really needed as the bickering about Robertson's reach is kind of beside the point.

Sorry to ruin the conspiracy theory party, but the Whitehouse has already said they aren't going to assassinate Chavez. I think this pretty much rules out an attempt, as anything would now be assumed to be the work of those evil oil-thirsting American Christianistas.

Story here

One crazy guy says something stupid and we are to assume he's revealing George Bush's evil plot to monger (yes, I said monger) more oil? Give me a break. :cool:

politicophile I think we have almost all moved on from Host's original post to simply discussing whether or not Robertson should be admonished for saying such a thing.

I think we should be celebrating that we can pretty much ALL agree on this point. (now how often does that happen?)

I also think it is a little too easy to just brush Roberstson off as "one crazy guy". He has little more influence than that (maybe not as much as Howard Stern apparently but influence nonetheless... :cool: )

The influence of Robertson can be seen in the simple fact that the whitehouse felt the need to address his statement....I do not think I have ever seen the administration react to Howard Sterns opinions. Like it or not....the 700 club and its affiliates do hold quite a bit of power in this country, as they are well organized and the leadership is fully capable of manipulating its followers (which are a relatively large group).

Hm, since when did the White House become a credible source of truth and reassurance? :D

Not saying it's true, but rather pointing out the "the whitehouse said.." bit. Most things the white house says are complete fabrications anyway made to give people what they wanna hear.

Thanks for the clarification, trust me when I say I was not implying anything by asking.

I don't think it is just the level of influence he has, but the way he portrays himself. If Stern were to call for the murder of someone, I would condemn him just as quickly. I might make sure it wasn't just part of a bit (his show being mostly an attempt at comedy), but I'm pretty sure Robertson's statement was not meant as anything but straightforward.

The reason why something like this really is a big deal is that it exemplifies the very un-Christian policies of many vocal Christian leaders in our country. There is a church on my work that has a sign out front "He bore a cross; We bear grudges". Last I checked, none of the gospels indicate any desire by Jesus for His followers to do anything of the sort, in fact quite the opposite. This is very disconcerting for a lot of Christians, because it is a misrepresentation of their faith, and of the tenets of Christianity, yet to a large degree, folks like Robertson are regarded as mouthpieces of Christian thought.

I certainly hope you are correct, and that the US does not take steps against the Chavez administration. I would be naive to think that they aren't prepared to though, should they feel it would work to their benefit.

No, Robertson's statement really has nothing to do with all of that. He isn't revealing anything we didn't already know (icy relations between the two leaderships), nor present an option that hadn't already been talked about (assassination). Pat won't dictate US policy, nor will he stop it.

Personally, as someone who calls himself both a Republican and a Christian, I would watch The 700 Club about the same time I would download the Howard Dean/Hillary Clinton sex tape.

Something I though when I heard about this: what if Venezuala takes this seriously?

If someone in Iraq, or Saudi Arabia, or Venezuala for that matter, were to make such a statement about our president, the US government would immediately demand that person be turned over.

If Chavez were to do the same, what would our government do?

Just something to toss around.

Actually, according to his own words, he is.

I did some more reading on Chavez to get a better feeling for who he is. In my research, I found a fairly complete wikpedia entry:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_Ch%C3%A1vez

According to it, I note that he has done some good things and he has done some bad things.

While Host has touched on some of the good, I will mention that apparently he sends thugs to threaten journalists that write bad things about him, he has lead two coups against the democratically elected government, and he has ignored his own country's court decisions regarding state workers he has unilaterally fired.

I cannot help but think what Host and some others would say about Bush if he did these things.

So when I see a post like this, the word "hypocrite" immediately comes to mind.

Edited to add:

Oh, and for the record, I think Robertson is an a-hole.

I think the irony is how you've constructed a completely inappropriate analogy.

1) The statement "not all muslims are alike", whenever I've heard it employed, has been a response to the ignorant assumption that muslims as a group hate americans.

2) these same people, along with others, usually can't seem to understand the difference between a fanatic religious segment of muslims, a non-fanatic religious segment of muslims, and the hinge of all this--that muslim is an ethnicity, not necessarily tied to the religion Islam.

3) political parties are chosen, presumably, by their adherents because they share the views of other members of the party and want to implement similar policies. So they band together and elect representatives in the hopes those people will effect their will.

4) religious groups, while many people might be born into them, are by and large chosen by the adults because they share the perspective of the other members in their congregation.

So it seems perfectly reasonable and accurate to me that when you have a group of people sharing a religious perspective AND a political party that you will find those people tend to think along similar lines and desire to plot courses of action in conjunction with one another.

It seems really odd to me that you would equate such a statement with "all caucasians are the same" or "all italians are the same." You might have had a stronger case if you had used "all Islamics are the same."


These comments are all based on my premise that political parties are self-selected groups of people who think about particular problems in similar ways and want a coordinated effort to address those problems.

I don't see religion the same way, many people seem to follow the course of their parents, family, and/or friends, but there are more religious flavors than political parties, so whatever, it seems problematic to assume adherents of a main "branch" of religion would necessarily think in similar ways--although they do at the abstract level (if we are to consider that they might consider a deity exists, in so far as that governs their day to day activities; they might consider an objective morality to be in operation; they might consider the importance of attending relgious services with one another in ways dissimilar to non-religious peoples, & etc).

I definately don't see the same patterns of behavior and choice when it comes to ethnicity or racial categorization. Although, one might make a case for broad characterizations of a particular ethnic groups as it pertains to cultural notions. But those same people would have to be very careful when they decide to shift from the aggregate to the personal...

Excellent contribution to the discussion, Smooth.

Lebelle, I lost confidence in wikipedia when Politico and I debated partial birth abortion. When I searched PBA, wikipedia gave an unbelievable small number of PBA's per year, given that the proponent of the procedure claimed to do 1,200 per year. I fear that this is the weakness of an open source encyclopedia given that anyone can post anything to it. Do you have another source for your assertions?