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?

I'm just sitting here wondering where all the christian outrage is. It seems to me that the vast majority of christians, by not publicly expressing their disapproval of robertson's assassination call, are in fact giving implicit approval of said assassination call.

Does it matter where the christian outrage is? Why do all these self appointed christian leaders get to speak for everyone. Being a christian does not mean you automatically give approval to the call for assasination, or anything else Bush and the neo-cons say. Just because you don't speak out against something, doesn't mean you automatically condone it. :rolleyes:

Thank you, samcol. I hope this rational perspective is extended to liberals in the future in analogous situations...eg, whether they actually "support" saddam or islamic terrorists...or extended to moderate followers of islam when they "failed" to speak out against the fundamentalist segments of their religion...

...I sensed some frustration (rightfully) in your post and hope that you now have a notion of the frustration others have felt for the past few years when equally absurd insults have been hurled at them when they didn't explicitly rail against people and ideologies that seemed ludicrous that they would support (as happens in the cases when liberals are accused of supporting terrorists or dictators)...unfortunately, this is the kind of us v. them I feel comments such as "if you aren't with us you're against us" produce...

I will have to file this one away the next time someone on the right starts talking about liberal conspiracies and asking why liberals don't stand up and tell ***insert fringe wacko here*** that they are wrong and out of line.


There should be Christian outrage because this man, who has a very large pulpit, is a leader of the Christian right. Christians should stand up and denounce him for the wacko he is. Shout him down. Make it clear that what he says is wrong.

As a Christian leader, hell as a Christian, what he is saying *is* wrong. You should be offended to the core of your belief system that someone is sullying the good name of your religion.


In this silence I trust that the irony that Robertson sounds a lot like a mullah calling for a fatwa is not lost on you. That your silence is not all that much unlike the silence of muslims of good consience who do not speak out.

Personally, I'd watch the sex tape. You'd have to, because curiosity will eat away at you. You know you would!

Good call.

I thought the same thing. I seriously hope they demand we turn him over so they can have their way with him.

I wasn't going to bother posting here anymore, personally I was sick of some of the double standard BS, but this is really a masterful bit filterton.

As soon as young christians strap bombs to themselves in the name of god and start to blow up public places in Venezuela you will even have a good analogy. Unless word is accompanied by deed, they are just words.

I've really got some other important things I'm working on, so I'll have to pass on looking for something else. As far as I know, their information is correct. If you have something that refutes it, I'll take a look.

i don't know that anything more important in this thread has been said than zen tom's summation:
Calling for the death of anyone is not Christian practice as far as i'm concerned, and to do so publicly and for purely political reasons is crassly sinful, an open defiance of God's demand that we love one another as Christ has loved us.

i think some of the leftists are taking the wrong tack here, however. in politics, as in many things...i believe that silence says a great deal. while it is never fair to assume that one person speaks for an entire group...a failure to refute or confront a self-appointed spokesperson can be a troublesome thing. If there are excesses in our own house, we must be the first to be honest about them...imo.

So you are saying give the attention whore known as Pat Robertson attention?

Pat Roberston is powerless, no one is going to kill themselves at his bidding. I see no problem ignoring the Pat Robertson's of the world. Sometimes you give someone more power by attacking them, than by ignoring them. This concept is used by such fine organizations as the KKK and Peta.

As was pointed out earlier, the White House itself feels the need to respond to Robertson's evil and senile rantings - it ain't the posters of the TFP we need worry about giving attention to old Pat.

Let's not forget, Robertson got 3 million people to sign up to volunteer on his presidential campaign back in 88. He might've been president if he hadn't lied about his military service in Korea.

Also, Robertson has had several private meetings with President Bush. You don't get to do that unless you have some sort of power.
As John McCain said, "George W. Bush is a Pat Robertson Republican".

Agreed. While I understand the President needs to be seen meeting with prominent religious leaders, politically I hope he'll pick more moderate conference mates.

I can agree with this to a point. I do think it is important within this forum that we have found some sort of concensus on Robertson's words. What happens here isn't going to amount to much in terms of giving Robertson more power by attacking him. But it does show that we can agree on *something*.

However, I think it is time that high ranking Christian leaders openly condemn Robertson for his words. In the Christian doctrine, what Robertson has asked for is evil. I don't think there is any way to refute this. If there were enough that were willing to stand together and say, "What this man says is wrong" I think it would go a long way to pointing out how extreme Robertson's posistion is...

Whether someone will act on his words or not is entirely besides the point and I am disappointed that some of you can't see this.

dbl postie

Ask the secret service how they feel about words versus deeds.

I don't need suicide bombers for a good analogy. It stands on its own.

I doubt that any christians will personally take it upon themselves to assassinate a foreign leader. What robertson is advocating is embracing a foreign policy that allows for the assassination of democratically elected foreign leaders. You think that's okay? You think that's a good representation of christianity?

The US has had the docterine of having force readiness for two minor wars in two seperate theatres at the same time.

...

What I'm wondering is, is it legal in the USA to advocate the assasination of a foriegn head of state? Or hell, anyone? You'd think it would be covered by "death threat" laws.

Secondly, while Pat may not speak for every right-wing christian, where is the condemntation of his speech? Shouldn't the right-wing christians who find such speech to be evil and unchristian be condemning him and distancing themselves from him? Where are the right-wing ministry leaders calling Pat a heretic, misguilded, wrong or just plain evil?

Stevo, you say "Pat doesn't speak for me, and I think we went to far in this case". How about "Pat is a hate-mongering evildoer?"

That is the standard upon which the Islamic comminity is being held to. When someone with a huge following within your religious group makes hate speech, and you do not condemn them, you support them by being part of the group that supports them, or so goes the logic...

How many, out of each of their audiences, consider the speaker to be spewing jokes?

I'm betting more people take Pat Robertson's advocation of assasination more seriously than Stern's boobie and potty jokes.

No, don't give him attention. He has the eyeballs of millions of Americans right now, he has tonnes of attention. This isn't some poor insane street corner preacher that nobody listens to. This is someone at the centre of a mass media empire, one of the more prominate faces of American Christianity on the world stage.

I am not talking about giving him attention. Condemn him. Call him a heretic. Expell him from the Republican party. Say "there is a line I will not cross, and Pat Robertson represents it". Show some moral fibre.

Edit: I was rude below. I apologize. Text spoilered-out, but left (I blacked out rather than deleting).

Spoiler: And I'm well aware of the historical Republican southern strategy regarding the KKK and other fine southern institutions. I'm surprised anyone would show pride in it.

My apologies Ustwo. I saw "ignore the KKK", and got angry. I should not have responded like I did.

I think it's a form of terrorism, really. That kind of policy tells other people that "we can destabilize your government, and, therefore, your country and your lives, anytime we feel like it." Which is really the position that OBL has taken.

Switching gears, I read some analysis today that asserted Robertson's statements also contained a thinly-veiled attack on the war in Iraq. It's an interesting idea.

I'm pretty busy today, and didn't have the time to post, but I just can't resist.

The White House spoke out against it - the guy who lives there is christian
The State Department spoke out against it

Pat Robertson is not a religous leader. he is a broadcaster. He is not on the same plane in the christian community that mullahs are in the islamic community. There is a difference. There's no christian outcry because 1) Many christians do not consider him as a spiritual leader 2) Robertson suggested a state policy, he didn't "issue a fatwa" or "call his followers to arms" or tell people to strap bombs to themselves and kill as many people and create as much destruction and mayham as possible.

Anyone that cannot see the difference needs to really ask themselves which side they are on.

Possibly you do not understand what mullahs are.

Mullahs are people who are the koran-educated religious leaders of islam, who interprit the holy scripture and law and tell others what their interpritation is.

Just like Pat Robertson, but he interpritations the Bible, and broadcasts his beliefsto millions of followers.

Pat Robertson claims he is a religious leader. Look at his website if you don't think so. He has his doctor of divinity. He has written multiple best-selling religious books.

So yes, Pat Robertson qualifies as a christian mullah.

I'm on the side of truth.

I assume I can ask you questions you ask of me.

So, what side, exactly, are you on?

Hear hear Yakk, that's what we're talking about here.

The question raised is, are we principled or not?

Guy, that's really weak. "He's a guy on TV, not a religious leader"???

There was an article by the LA Times in this morning's paper that states that Robertson "provoked a storm of criticism Tuesday, triggering condemnation from fellow religious leaders and international outrage, while the Bush administration said he was a 'private citizen' whose remarks were 'inappropriate'."

Inappropriate?

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...home-headlines

Lebell, my views on socialist style government vs. a capitalistic style can be
found here http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...4&postcount=47
I see a "pattern" that indicates that where multinational corporations enjoy an undue influence in third world countries, the infant mortality rates tend to be above 25 per 1000 live births. CIA Fact Book shows Venezuela with 22 per thousand, and Cuba with less than 5.....lower than in the US, in fact. It seems similar to the disconnect in logic that I see when discussin Iraq. Those civilians who were killed in "Op Iraqi Freedom", are not "better off" than if Saddam's regime had not been toppled. "Killin' 'em" to "Free 'em", seems hard to defend..........

stevo...your argument seems poorly researched......Robertson's CBN received $132 million in donations in 2004, he is also founder and president of a college that boasts 3000 students. Bush is on record as endorsing his "ministry", being aligned with him politically, "spiritually", and philosphically. These folks are "corporatists" to a man, IMO. Chavez represents everything that they oppose....politically and economically..... Bush "plays" up to the Christian mullahs in the US in a disturbingly similar way to "secular" politicians in places like Iran do, to their "mullahs"!

Robertson is now claiming that he was misinterpreted. How could we have all been so mistaken in what he said. :rolleyes:

Initially I had only read the first part and thought it was more a snide reference to the monetary costs of war, but reading the entire quotation tells me he's gone off the deep end. You don't work in broadcasting as long as he has without developing a healthy sense of self-censorship.

Given his age I can't help but think there might be a medical condition involved. If not it could be an effective scapegoat for his retirement.

Tough to misinterpret.

host, whitehouse.org is a parody website.

If you where unaware of this, you should be more careful.

If you where aware of this, including a parody website article at the head of a bunch of other articles does nothing but destroy your credibility.

What he meant was *character* assassination...

Sorry for the misinterpretation Mr. Roberston.

Never mind. I just spent a few minutes going over old Robertson quotations. He's said this kind of thing before, from killing foreign leaders to nuking D.C.

Less time should be spent on this single incident and more on a psychological examination. But maybe that ruins the horse-race.

If nothing else this gives hope for my dreams of television fame. (sarcasm)

The difference I'm speaking of is the difference between a mullah or sheikh saying this:

And some blowhard on TV saying this:

There is a difference, equating the two is rediculous.

none of that matters. he's not calling his followers to war, he was farting out a political fantasy.

This whole thing is rediculous. I'm not defending the man, but to equate robertsons remarks to those terrorist spokesfucks is retarted.

I was just reading the first article with my mouth hanging open in shock. They did a fairly decent job of copying the true homepage for whitehouse.gov. :lol:

Host, if you are planning on making all of us read through your ridiculously long quotations, I respectfully ask that you read through them before posting and make some very basic effort to verify their authenticity. This quotation is so obviously fraudulant that I can't possibly believe you actually read the article.

Stevo you are right. They are not *exactly* the same but they are in same ball park. Different degrees of harshness but the same content -- religious leaders calling for the death of someone.

If what Elphaba says is true:
I see this as a good sign.

I do not expect the White House to play this any other way. They are politicians after all and cannot affort to *completely* repudiate Robertson as his base supports them. They just need to put some comfortable distance between themselves and him.

I would like to see more coverage of the "condemnation from fellow religious leaders".

If it is so ridiculous, then it should be easy to explain on what principle it is fine to advocate murder in one instance, and evil to advocate murder in another?

The biggest difference between the 2? One has an audience of millions on his own broadcast company, the other preaches to hundreds of people in a public square (in general - yes, there are clerics who have some access to television).

I would like to go back to Charlatan's post a few up...

I stated earlier that robertson is not part of the solution, but part of the problem. he's a religious extremist, I see that point. I also never said it is fine to advocate murder, where did you get that I did? All I said was equating roberts statement to osama's (or any islamofacist leader) call for a war against the infadels is bologna - B O L O N E Y. Why the hell would I want to defent an ass like robertson? But equating what robertson said to what terrorists say is an insult to those killed by terrorism and to their families.

It seems like there's a little crowd out in TFP land that just needs to argue against robertson, no matter who it is with, so they put words in my mouth and act like I'm his biggest contributor. get a life.

Now hold on - I didn't say you supported what he said, I asked you to explain in more detail what the difference is between them. You have replied, stating that the difference is that people have actually done what Osama asked them to do, while Robertson so far doesn't have the pursuasion skills to actually get anyone to do his bidding.

But it's still not a principle is it?

Equating one man calling for the death of another, to another man calling for the death of someone else seems perfectly reasonable to me. They are the same thing. I completely condemn both of them by the way. Both are morally reprehensible. But they are also exactly the same thing.

I have not insulted anyone who was unlucky enough to be in the WTC on 911, or anyone who was in the Bali bomb, or at any of the Iraqi checkpoints or on a London tube. Please calm down and look at the issue from a reasonable, factual perspective.

Robertson is WRONG, Osama is WRONG - they are the same. It is a matter of principle.

sure-they're both wrong. but they're not exactly the same. One called for his followers, actually every muslim in the world, to follow his orders, while the other suggested the US government follow his advice. There's still a difference, they're not the same. But I'm done with this. I don't think there's anything left for me to say.

From this NY Times article:

"Political and religious leaders continued to denounce Mr. Robertson today. The World Evangelical Alliance issued a statement saying, "Robertson does not speak for evangelical Christians. We believe in justice and the protection of human rights of all people, including the life of President Chavez."

On Tuesday, Mr. Robertson's comments were denounced by both the State Department and by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld."

And from this one:
The Rev. Rob Schenck, president of the National Clergy Council, released a statement saying Mr. Robertson should "immediately apologize, retract his statement and clarify what the Bible and Christianity teaches about the permissibility of taking human life outside of law."

The Rev. Richard Cizik of the National Association of Evangelicals said he and "most evangelical leaders" would disassociate themselves from such "unfortunate and particularly irresponsible" comments.", "The Rev. Jesse Jackson called for the Federal Communications Commission to investigate", and ""ABC Family strongly rejects the views expressed by Pat Robertson."

I included Rumsfeld and the State Department because they seemed noteworthy. I think at this point it is safe to say that there has been some outrage expressed by the Christian community leaders. And remember, this is 10 minutes of looking on one website. I'm sure there's more. Anyone disagree?

That's good to hear.

When I googled Robertson earlier in the day, there were pages of reports of outcry from both religious leaders and the international press. I wonder if Robertson may have succeeded in destroying his reputation even among his own flock?

Please accept my sincere apology, politicophile, and everyone else who read the deceptive, fake, "news" release from the satirical site, whitehouse.org that I led with in the first quote box of my last post on this thread.

Since I initiated the topic of this thread, I recognize that I have more of a responsibility to post information that I sincerely believe is accurate, than everyone else here, does. I posted what I believed to be an archive press release from the official white house website. I do thoroughly read every quote that I post, and I did not do so, in this instance.

The following is a fact based article that describes a "pay back" to Pat Robertson's CBN, by the republican congressional majority, in the recently passed "transportation bill". The question I have, is...."pay back" to the Robertson organization....for what?
The article is an example of "corporate welfare", if the highway interchange is primarily necessary to increase the value/development potential of CBN's real estate holdings. With the newly emerging "energy crisis", is the best use of deficict enhancing federal spending, construction of a new highway interchange that was <b>"not on the region’s list of priority interstate projects, nor is it in the Virginia Department of Transportation’s six-year spending plan" ?</b>

This federal appropriation indicates that Robertson and CBN still have the ability to influence federal legislators directly, possibly for their mutual financial benefit, since CBN did not appear to work through conventional local and state transportation agencies to get the funding. This is disturbing. It is also extremely alarming, that, with motor fuel headed towards the $3.00 per gallon level, and possibly beyond, that a transportation bill that funds the expansion of automobile dependent, urban sprawl, and tax breaks for the oil industry, funds these counterproductive provisions at the cost of more federal borrowing and further neglect of mass transit infrastructure and an emphasis on new development in urban centers that will become more attractive because of the effects of high fuel prices on public attitudes and pocketbooks.

The 2004 election cemented the political power and influence of politicians from predominantly non-urban states. These are people who come from places where the automobile is the only practical means of transport. They promote policies and funding that are all about insuring plentiful oil without a signifigant plan for efficiency or conservation. It is ironic to observe the political "hit" that they are just beginning to experience from their constituents as the fossil fuel availability that drives their policy goals becomes increasingly inaffordable, even as the rising price and their rising deficit gnaws away at the stability of U.S. currency.

Do not discount the fact that Pat Robertson founded and financed the ACLJ with the goal of countering the perceived "liberal" influence of the ACLU. Pat's "foresight" and investment seem to be bringing a return, lately. Pat hired the ACLJ's director. Pat is neither an irrelevant force, nor one that "mainstream" republican leaders can distance themselves from. He has his own "bully pulpit", too much money and fund raising ability, and the same political base that Rove has so methodically cultivated for Bush. I believe that Bush and Cheney share Pat's sentiment about Chavez. They are taking us back to Pre-Castro, "Batista" style, U.S. imperialism, always a great climate for white European Spanish and American business investors, but terribly tragic for the "brown", impoversihed masses..........
The Robertson, ACLJ "Op", in and of itself, coupled with the Rove/RNC perversion of the thinking of the members of the Christian "Right" convinces me that "mullah" is the approriate title for Robertson and a number of others who manipulate "JAY-sus" as an opiate for the masses who are duped into supporting their power and wealth grab. The Chavez "rant" is icing on the cake because it will prompt some of you here and elsewhere in the U.S. to focus some attention on the Rove/Delay/Frist/Dobson orchestration that makes the Bush/Cheney attack on the sensibilities, security, and constitutionally guaranteed "rights" of informed Americans, even possible......

Given what has happened in the last few days, I'm wondering if you are still wondering.

Yes. There is a difference between OBL's calls for war against the infidels, and Pat Robertson's war and violence incitement.

Pat Robertson is far better at it, and is speaking to people far more competent at mass civilian slaughter and megadeath.

OBL is a sick, old, weak man hiding in some cave somewhere.

Pat Robertson has the ear of the leader of the most aggressive military on earth, has millions of followers who believe he speaks the word of God, and has massive political power (volunteers, money, and seemingly policy) over large swaths of the dominant national party in the most militarially aggressive nation on earth.

OBL speaks those who feel hopeless and oppressed, and tells them to attack their oppressors. OBL is hunted by nearly every government on the planet. Pat Robertson is invited to the White House.

One side has nuclear bombs, can drop megatonnes of conventional explosive at will anywhere in the world -- and has shown a regular enthusiasm for doing it. The other can manage high-end paper cutters.

Forgive me if I consider Pat more dangerous than OBL.

Don't get me wrong. Both Pat and OBL are evil, dispicable men. They use religion, a tool that can bring harmony to mankind, and use it to incite death, destruction and murder. But don't expect me to respect Pat more simply because he wears suits and looks more like me.

So, what side are you on?

Pat Robertson is more dangerous than Osama bin Laden. Pat Robertson is more dangerous than Osama bin Laden. Pat Robertson is more dangerous than Osama bin Laden... - I thought that if I said it out loud a few times, I might be able to make sense of it.

Pat Robertson says that it would be a good idea to kill one person and you think that makes him more dangerous than the man who authorized the 9/11 attacks and God knows what else? I'm sorry, but I cannot understand this position. Where do Hitler and Stalin fit in? Maybe in between OBL and Robertson? :mad:

Back at you Jack: what side are you on?

I'm on the side of truth, and I think they are on equal moral low ground. They're both espousing terrorism.

The Terrorists are incompetent. Terrorism in general is a poor and ineffective way to cause harm to your opponents, unless your opponents sieze up and go into spasms.

The largest Terrorist attack in history managed to kill more people in that month than the number of traffic accidents -- in that same city -- in that same month. I believe by the second month, traffic accidents where once again ahead.

And that attack succeeded far beyond the wildest dreams of the attackers. They got increadibly "lucky", they had no idea they would cause nearly that much damage.

Terrorism, as an offensive weapon, is ineffective and gimpy.

The US military machine is highly effective at overthrowing nations, causing megacivilian deaths, and generally causing damage. Do I really need to provide citations of the nations which the US has invaded, attacked, overthrown, or destabalized? Here is a game! You pick a year -- any year from 1960 on -- and I'll tell you a nation that the US was destabalizing, attacking, or invading within 4 years of that date.

Maybe you'll win. But I doubt it. After all, the US election cycle is 8 years long, and what are the odds that a president would give up that big a popularity boost?

What I see is two men. One of which has a broken neck and is wielding a wet noodle, and swearing he wants to slice you open with it. The other has a rocket launcher aimed at you, and tells you to start dancing. Who is the more dangerous?

Because that is the relative power involved here.

Yes, OBL managed to encourage people to kill a few thousand people. This sucks. But at the scale of global conflict and US military power, it is a pittance.

Pat Robertson says it is a good idea for the US government to kill the democratically elected leader of a country that has engaged in nothing that even approximates acts of war against the USA.

Unilateral, covert, acts of war by the USA have caused untold damage over the world. The USA has been willing to engage in doings these thinly vieled acts, and the people of the USA have stood by and cheered. Continued support for such acts is dangerous, deadly, immorral and evil.

And I will not stand idly by, and pretend it doesn't matter. I mean, he just wants the US government to overthrow a popular, democratically elected, Latin American president. Nothing the US hasn't done before, anon and anon -- that makes it right and just? Right?

No. It does not. I will not pardon these acts. There is a line, and I will not cross it, nor will I excuse those who do.

Truth. I will not ally with liars. I will not pretend murderers are not murderers. I will not excuse someone of their crimes just because they wear a suit, look like me, and speak honeyed words.

Terrorism is ineffective? Tell that, first, to the families of the 9/11 victims. Then tell that to Zapatero and the other cowards in Spain. Terrorists kill people: they kill innocent people, which is the very thing you demonize the United States for doing. Let's try and avoid a double standard here.


Soviets in Afghanistan, Americans in Vietnam - 'nuff said.

A particularly smelly red herring, but nothing more. Pat Robertson, as a single American and not a political leader, cannot and should not be blamed for what you consider to be immoral actions of the United States. I don't blame OBL for forcing Saudi Arabian women to walk around in 100 degree heat wearing black shadoors.

Megadeaths are millions of deaths. The U.S. has participated in some conflicts where there were civilian megadeaths: WWI (I'm guessing), WWI, possibly Vietnam and Korea - that's all. Especially post-1960 (otherwise, you will invariably start talking about Native Americans or slavery), the United States has not been causing civilian megadeaths.

I agree with you that this is the situation we are facing: now we need to stop worrying about Robertson's wet noodle (which is very small in the first place :lol: ) and focus on OBL's rocket launcher.


Ooooookay. But Pat Robertson casually suggesting we off the President of Venezuela some how does measure on that scale? We're not comparing OBL with The Great Satan here - we're comparing him to the annoying, incorrect blowhard known as Pat Robertson.


Part slippery slope, part red herring. The progression is facinating, but I still feel that your analogy here is entirely incorrect.



I'm not suggesting you ally yourself with anybody, least of all Pat Robertson. I'm just suggesting you face the breath-takingly obvious reality that Osama bin Laden is more dangerous, more sinister, more evil, etc - than Pat Robertson. I can't put it any more clearly than that.

That wasn't terrorism that was either war or insurgency. I may be splitting hairs here but I don't think so.




Ultimately I agree with an earlier post... Robertson and someone like OBL are on the same moral ground. In this regard they are equal. I don't think there is any shading when it comes to calling for someone's death (whether it is an individual or the entire Western world).

Yes, Robertson has the ear of the leader of the US but the likelihood of the US Administration carrying out his wishes is rather remote.

As far as i've heard, the vast majority of christians have said not a thing. I mean, it's one thing for a few christian leaders to decry such statements here or there, but you must understand that i've read parts of the bible and it is indeed seemingly a violent and bloodthirsty ideology. How many instances are there of the christian god destroying entire communities, civilizations even, as part of some sort of immature sense of vengeance? Have you heard the story of job? If this is the behavior of the christian god, the being in whose image christians believe themselves to be made, what reason do i have to believe that most christians are above the use of a little assassination if it furthers their agenda?

Yakk...you've done a great job of explaining the point that the difference between the "mullahs" of the Muslim faith and the Christian "mullahs" here in the U.S., is that the ones here have the actual influence, power, and wealth to actually trun their hatred and ignorance into real attacks that result in death and injury to real people and further erode (if that is even possible to do to the current administration...) the reputation of our country in the eyes of our former allies.

Those who dismiss Robertson as irrelevant should reconsider........

We've discussed the federal republican politicians' relatiobship with the religious right, before.....here:
<a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=83400">Do Religious Right's Beliefs Pose Threat to U.S.?</a>

If you think that 700 Club/CBN, are Robertson's only outlet for broadcasting misinformation and propaganda, think again;
the guy has the tentacles of an octopus, as far as the influence that he is capable of projecting. Robertson's puppet at ACLJ, Jay Sekulow, has his own daily call in, syndicated radio talk show.....
http://www.aclj.org/OnTheRadio/Archive.aspx

Jay Sekulow's "resume" from the ACLJ website

I am talking about scale. Death is death. Death sucks. Do you understand that 1 million deaths sucks more than 1 thousand deaths?

Terrorism is evil. Terrorism is, compared to nations making War, incompetent at doing evil. Because War causes evil with far less effort and with far greater efficiency than Terrorism ever has.

If you cannot tell the different between millions of innocent people killed, and thousands of innocent people killed, I cannot help you understand it.

Yes, Terrorists kills people. I claim that, compared to the modern military, they are ineffective at it. Terrorism kills people retail, while modern war kills people wholesale.

I have never not demonized OBL. He's an evil fuck. But he's a gimpy, ineffective evil fuck if you compare him on a world-wide scale.

Given the USAs history, the USA is quite likely to off the President of Venezuela. The USA has a pattern and habit of killing Latin American elected leaders and overthrowing their governments. The USA has tolerated one nation in it's hemisphere that is constistently openly defiant of it (Cuba), and it took the threat of nuclear holocaust for that to happen.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB4/

So, no, I do not consider Pat's comments to be idle threats. They fit the pattern of US foreign-policy behaviour in the region quite accurately.

Both instances of defensive guerilla warfare -- of people pushing occupiers off of the land they grew up on. I stated that Terrorism is an ineffective offensive weapon.

Pat Robertson has influence over millions of Americans, a non-trivial percentage of political activists in the USA, a good chunk of the US House of Representatives and Senate, and is complemented and invited to visit by the president of the USA.

So, no, Pat Roberston is not just "some blowhard". Ayn Coultier is "some blowhard". Ayn Rand is "some blowhard". Pat Robertson is someone with influence.

Possibly Pat is in the midst of seeing his influence be destroyed. All the better. But claiming that Pat has no influence is disingenious.

I don't blame OBL for every act of terrorism in the world. But the weapon OBL is using -- terrorism -- is ineffective as an offensive weapon. The weapon Pat is waving around is not.

So, other than a number of examples, the US has not been causing civilian megadeaths. I'm sorry, but I won't brush Vietnam under the carpet.

Anyhow, the US is working on a new megadeath. What was the official US government Iraqi civilian bodycount for current 15 year old War in the Gulf? If not, have any decent estimates?

How does that compare to the American bodycount caused by OBL -- heck, caused by all terrorists -- in the same period of time?

I am getting this mental image of a pile of pebbles next to a mountain.

Scale matters.

OBL and Pat Robertson are the same -- people who use religion to generate hate. The difference is, Pat Robertson has influence over people who are far more deadly than OBL does.

Didn't Robertson also call for the death of Supreme Court Justices? In fact, didn't he pray for it? I thought I read that he prayed for O'Connor's "resignation" (one way or the other) and that G*d answered his prayers after 2 years.

He didn't call for the death of SC justices, but he definitely called for people to pray for them to retire, as you say, one way or the other. He said he thought it was time for them to move on. The non-conservative ones, that is. When reminded that they are given lifetime appointments, he reiterated that it was just time for them to move on. He obviously doesn't respect our constitution.

Thanks for the clarification.

The whole thing just seems so....childish.

Yes, I understand that. But do you understand that threatening one person with death sucks less than plotting to and succeeding in killing thousands of civilians?

Terrorism is a specific act that happens in war. It is an atrocity, often during a war, where civilians are attacked and killed in order to damage the enemy's resolve and morale. So saying that terrorism is less effective at "causing evil" than war doesn't make a lot of sense. Certainly, your typical large battle is more costly in terms of lives than your average terrorist attack, but, since terrorism is an act of war, divorcing it from other kinds of warfare is unwarranted.


...while Pat Robertson hasn't killed anyone at all. Can't say that about Osama, can we?

Not as ineffective as Pat Robertson.



:lol: You sure like to hold grudges against entire nations years after the perpetrators are gone from power. Does it seem "quite likely" to you that Germany will invade France again? Given their history...

Yeah, but Robertson doesn't speak for the government! If a prominent neo-Nazi in Germany suggested that we should kill the President of France, say, would you be worried that another blitzkreig is around the corner?



How about the IRA bombing campaign in England, then, if you don't like those examples?



Vastly overstated. The sensationalism does not help your cause. Can you find a Congressman, Senator, or President that has made a statement supporting Robertson's suggestion?

Research *chuckle*... MEGADEATHS! - in the Soviet Union and youo might have a better understanding of why we did what we did in Vietnam.

Well, if you take into account the number of Iraqi civilians that are killed by the insurgency every day, I'd say we're running pretty close to even, with the terrorists gaining every day.

Oh yeah? Like who? Who are these deadly people Pat Robertson can motivate to action?

Sorry to threadjack for the moment but I found this statement interesting (I added some bold for emphasis).

By this reasoning, the US committed acts of terrorism when they dropped the nukes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The allies committed acts of Terrorism when they bombed civilian tragets in Germany (just as the Germans did in London).

Are you sure you want to stand by this definition of Terrorism?

Any attack on civilians is a de facto terrorist attack - the point of the attack being to create an environment of fear and demoralization to one side or the other.

Having said that, in wholesale war, like WW2, where - unlike today - it truly was "us" or "them" to the virtual finish, there may be greater justification.

http://www.holysmoke.org/wb/wb0239.htm
Pat doesn't just talk. He acts.

Political policy in the middle east, inspired by scripture!

What kind of people does Pat have influence over? He's a massive fund-raiser and volunteer-raiser for the Republican party. Obviously he has no influence with the government...

http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/re...pat-robertson/
As an aside, I've got a bridge to sell you.

The acts of a man with no influence.

He lost the 1988 nomination because he lied and claimed he was a combat marine, when he never saw a day of combat during his tour in Korea. If not for that, he was viewed as a decent chance of becoming the Republican nominee.

No influence. Just a blowhard.

I disagree. Pat Robertson is dangerous. He encourages people, from sentators to members of your house of representatives, to voters, to volunteers, to support the use of the US military as an aggressive military force.

This makes him dangerous.

There are some nations which have expressed regret over their past actions, and have changed their patterns of foreign policy. Germany, for example, is a nation that has changed more than night and day since the first half of the 20th century. The same with Japan, to a slightly lesser degree.

Other nations have expressed little to no regret, and even hold up their past to be emulated.

Did that neo-Nazi almost become chancellor of Germany 15 years ago, have an audience of millions in a daily or weekly broadcast, get invited to the house of the head of state and government regularly, is a major fundraiser for the government's election efforts, and is generally a mover and shaker?

Why yes, that would worry me.

The thing is, neo-Nazis are villified in much of Germany. Much like the KKK is villified in much of the USA.

Pat Robertson isn't. People who think like him are not. Their money is welcomed. Their support is welcomed. Their opinions are valued.

This makes them extremely dangerous.

You may remember something that happened in the American Democratic party a while ago. The democrats looked at their rolls, and saw something they would not tolerate. A racist wing of the party remained, a legacy of the civil war in the south.

Thus was born the Dixiecrats, who formed a splinter party and won a number of states in a presidential election. The democratic party kicked out a large source of power and votes in the south, because they would not stand for it anymore.

There is something a moral person must do. Even if someone will call you ally, and offer to help you, a moral person must determine what it means to call a person friend.

Possibly the Republicans can show this fibre. But so long as they call Pat Robertson friend and accept his aid, I cannot believe he has no influence over the Republican party.

Draw a line. Show your fibre.

The IRA bombing campaign in England was a resounding success!

Oh wait, it really wasn't. Northern Ireland is pretty much one of the most tightly held remnants of the UK's global empire, and is only now starting to be set free.

How many people did the IRA kill in England?

Ask the people of England if they will bow to terror.

You did it because you screwed up. You assumed that any two communists where allies, and that Vietnam would be an ally or puppet of this vast communist world-wide menace.

Vietnam was fighting a war against imperialist occupation. The USA came into this war on the French side of this colonial rebellion, and set up puppet governments to justify their intervention. Enough Vietnamese would rather die than live under occupation that the USA failed.

Most of the world figured this out, and stayed out of Vietnam.

The US blundered in, and megadeath resulted.

I agree that the nuclear bombings of Japan were terrorist attacks, albeit justified ones. The purpose of those attacks was to cause so much devastation that the enemy became completely demoralized and surrendered. Not all terrorist attacks are cowardly and unjustified, at least by definition. I think the decisions have to be viewed in context of the alternatives, however, where hundreds of thousands of poeple were going to die no matter what at the close of WWII.

Hmmm... given this assesment of terrorism it really starts to make me wonder.

Terrorism that benefits us = good

Terrorism that doesn't benefit us = bad


I'm sorry but I just don't see how the ends justify the means. Terrorism is wrong and that all there is really is to it.