Is Pat Robertson calling for a murder, or is he insane?

ASLANSPAL

You said:
I wonder if Chavez could pull this off and arrange
for Citgo to discount gas to needy Americans.

Then they took a poll who is a better Christian Pat Robertson or Hugo Chavez? who would win.

==Let's be clear, however, that such a poll is meaningless. The Bible makes it clear that good works cannot, and will not, save anyone. Many who do "moral" or "good" deeds will find themselves cast into hell (Matt 7:21-23). Also people's motives will be judged (1Cor 4:5). Mr Chavez could be in trouble on both counts.
_______________________________________________
Now to the more general topic. I am not, I must admit up front, a fan of Pat Robertson. I have heard him make false statements (ie...God told him Bush would win by a landslide) and I have heard him make wild statements (ie...the past few days). His follow up statements did not surprise me at all. I would say the fact that Robertson said something stupid is not news at all and should surprise nobody.

I think it is time that those of us who are evangelical Christians (well I am more fundamentalists, but...) to stop allowing Pat Robertson to be our media representative. We do this by turning the 700 Club OFF!

Now I am sure that Charles Stanley, Billy Graham, Chuck Swindall, Tony Evans, and others have much more pull within the evangelical community than Robertson does. So let's start showing that side of evangelicalism.

Having said all of this, however, Robertson has done one good thing: Regent University.

Martin.

 

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ideas_opinions/story/340504p-290749c.html

 

I like Pat Robertson but we differ greatly on theology. He made a mistake and spoke before thinking. Some opinions are better kept to ourselves. I think every body is making too much a big issue of this. And it is only because he is a Christian. He may prove to be right somewhere down the road. Besides ASSLANSPAL you stick your foot in your mouth all the time around here.

 

CIA, Military Men Agree with Pat Robertson

While televangelist Pat Robertson has apologized for suggesting that Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez be assassinated, a former military man and an ex-CIA operative have stepped forward to say that his concerns about Chavez aren't exactly unwarranted.

"Chavez is a dangerous guy," retired Col. David Hunt told Bill Bennett's "Morning in America" fill-in host Steve Malzberg on Wednesday. "We helped to elect the son of a gun [and] after 9/11 you don't get to threaten us."

The issue of assassination "should be on the table," Hunt said. "I'm suggesting that we use it as a tool . . . to get those guys nervous."
Former CIA operative Wayne Simmons agreed, telling Fox News Channel's "Hannity & Colmes," that Chavez has "threatened not only the United States and the west, but [has]armed himself with the revolutionary armed forces of Colombia, which is the oldest, most well-trained terrorist organization in Latin America."

"He should have been killed a long time ago," Simmons said.

SOURCE


All Pat did was to open the debate. What's the big deal? We've accepted pre-emptive war and bombing other countries to smithereens that haven't attacked us so why not just accept state sponsored murder? Seems like a logical extension of the pre-emptive policy to me.

Karl Rove and Bush are probably silently thankful Pat took the headlines away from the leaky White House problem for a minute, Cindy Sheehan can't grab em all up forever for them.

Well at least now the issue is on the table. Thanks Pat.

[ August 26, 2005, 08:04 PM: Message edited by: poncho ]

 

I don't know why Pat Robertson has a problem with the likes of Hugo Chavez, he usually attracts dictaters like a magnate.

That's right, even Pat Robertson has friends in low places. Three of them include the now-deceased dictator of Zaire Mobutu Sese Seko (also known as the Great Leopard), Jorge Serrano, former dictator of Guatemala, and Frederick Chiluba, the ruler of Zambia.

Mobutu was a sadistic, murderous, dictator who kept his country's people in poverty while he became one the richest men in the world. He could have cured all of his nation's ills with a personal check. Under his rule, Zaire was a country with very little personal freedom; public demonstrations were illegal, journalists were murdered by the state, and most religious groups were banned. The US State Department banned Mobutu from the country after he applied for a visa to come to Washington and improve his image.

So to say Hugo Chavez should be assasinated is kind of hypocritical when you take into account of the people he likes to hang out with.

 

What is it with you people from Arkansas?
(not you Joseph )

 

Sorry Ps104_33 I don't understand this comment.What is it suppose to say?

 

ASSLANSPAL
Rocko9
Bill Clinton.....

Ahh, maybe I'm over analyzing.

 

O.K. I see what your saying------------NOTHING!

 

Thats good! Well some of us have to work in the morning. Gotta get up at 4:00am.

 

I also.Btw who can I lump you with
Richard Nixon?
Jim Jones?
Jim Bakker?

I would not want to associate you with any of these but it isn't right for you do what you did.

 

We've accepted pre-emptive war and bombing other countries to smithereens that haven't attacked us

This is nothing new, pretty much from the birth of our nation on. Just in recent history, we had Viet Nam (Johnson), Grenada (Reagan), Panama (1st Bush), Yugoslavia (Clinton), and Iraq/Afghanistan (current Bush). Why should this be surprising, or source of contention? Any war begins with an aggressor. How many wars were there in the 20th century? How many are raging now, even if you exclude the ones we are involved in?

The history of man has been warfare.

 

Rocko, don't you think Ps was probably joking?

 

Well I hope he was . I know Aslanspal has made digs at folks on this board so hence the spelling of Asslanspal and the name Clinton in many circles has been regarded as a four letter word. So yeah I guess I took it kind of personal being in that list. His messages were kind of vague. Maybe he didn't mean it that way so I am sorry I overreacted.

 

So, you are saying that murdering the leader of another country, or a "head of state" is justifiable? You didn't really say what you thought, so I thought I would ask.

And NO, I do not support murder. Read that quote by Springsteen again.....

Regards,
BiR </font>[/QUOTE]---------------------------
Sorry for the delay in responding BiR. Kids been keeping me busy.
In response to your question, yes. I support taking out heads of state (who are usually dictators) if it will prevent war or loss of American lives.

Gimmee back my bullets--Lynard Skynard

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unfortunatly for my side of the argument,Mioque writes:
rivers1222
The problem is that if a murder evil Leaders of foreign governments were put into practice, the Idi Amin's of this world would not be on the list.
Taking the Cold War as an example. Assuming the US has a perfect killer on the payroll who always succeeds.
They are going to kill the enemies of the US instead of those leaders that are their own peoples enemies.
-------------------
I'm afraid you are correct mioque. Add to that, hindsight is always 20/20. Hard to prevent an event if it hasnt already happened. I still support the concept, and wont back away from it as the preacher wannabe politician did, but not sure I trust the people who would make such a grave decision about who to take out.

 

Speak for yourself, Bluefalcon. I never suggest to anybody that someone should be assassinated. If this is how most Christians talk amongst themselves, that's pretty depressing to me.

 

I like Pat Robertson but we differ greatly on theology. He made a mistake and spoke before thinking. Some opinions are better kept to ourselves. I think every body is making too much a big issue of this. And it is only because he is a Christian. He may prove to be right somewhere down the road. Besides ASSLANSPAL you stick your foot in your mouth all the time around here. </font>[/QUOTE]He had a hard time apologizing, and at first denied he said this. The reason this is a problem is because he is seen by many, especially unbelievers, as being a spokesperson for evangelical Christians. That is the problem.

I am tired of telling people that I am not a follower of Robertson or Falwell and that they are not speaking for me. This statement he made was unthinking and unchristian.

 

I don't know if anyone has brought this up, but the one of the possible outcomes of Mr. Robertson blurting these remarks could possibly be putting our missionaries to Venezuela in danger or maybe ending up closing that mission field.

A person in the public eye should weigh their words VERY carefully and think of possible ramifications and ripple effect their statements can have on others. This is true of all Christians, but especially those in the public eye.

 

In all fairness; I could see thinking something like that. I myself would not personally be for assassination, but knowing that it is a fact of life; I might figure "well, since [it has to happen in this world, and] we hav people in these countries that do such things, perhaps now would be a good time for it", even though I know that each individual instance of it is wrong. It is sort of like Jesus' principle of "It is impossible but that offences will come: but woe unto him, through whom they come!" (Luke 17:1)
Of course, with Robertson and his conservative, pro-American zeal (against anything he sees as threatenening our interests), it is likely that he was blurting out his true wish.

 

I thought pre-emptive war was something new to America. In the past wars that we have engaged in we weren't cast in the aggressors roll, by our own government and media anyway. A look behind the scenes might tell a different story though. Depends on how much faith one has in the government and media to be honest with us and how willing one is to dig for the facts the media leaves out of the headlines I guess. Personally I have little to no faith in the honesty of either anymore and the deeper I dig for facts the less convinced I am of ever hearing the whole truth on the majority of issues that are picked out for us to wrangle over.

The surprise factor comes in when one considers how easily we are today lead to believe that those in our government have our best interests at heart, by our interests I'm speaking of the citizens not the elite power brokers on wall street, the energy barons and of course the military industrial complex Ike warned us about that are driven by profits and bottom lines that have the means and where with all to influence our government servants to do their bidding with cash, perks and in some cases even blackmail.

Pat made an error in bringing up the savings of assasination over war IMHO. Think of the loss in profits the MIC might stand to lose if we adopted Pat's idea. Billions of dollars might no longer be made readily available to the suppliers of our military. Can you imagine the chagrin on the faces of the Carlyle group as they listened to Pat's statement on the tube?