Robertson endorses assassinating Chavez

[GAC]

Even Jesus, when he knew his departure was near, told his disciples to take a sword with them. Why?

Not for aggressive purposes; but for defense and protection.

"He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one." (Luke 22:36)

[savafan]

Originally Posted by traderumor

I understood you to be saying that if he did speak on the issue, it would be a "love and peace" message. I was saying, not necessarily.

I think I said "probably", but you're correct. Of course the Jews of that time believed that the Messiah would come and overthrow the government and rule them like a king, but that wasn't really the plan.

[traderumor]

Originally Posted by savafan

I think I said "probably", but you're correct. Of course the Jews of that time believed that the Messiah would come and overthrow the government and rule them like a king, but that wasn't really the plan.

And that has always been my objection to those who denied Christ's messiahship. They weren't really arguing from the Scriptures, they were arguing from the "messiah" they had created based on not understanding the Scriptures. I think he ripped the scribes and Pharisees a few times, and some are even recorded, for that very thing. And of course, as you pointed out, the misunderstanding continues. Sorry for the abrasive reply to your point.

[savafan]

Originally Posted by traderumor

Sorry for the abrasive reply to your point.

No problem. Frankly, I don't see why everyone wouldn't want a Messiah who's first miracle was changing water into wine just to keep the party going, but then maybe that's just me.

[GAC]

Originally Posted by traderumor

And that has always been my objection to those who denied Christ's messiahship. They weren't really arguing from the Scriptures, they were arguing from the "messiah" they had created based on not understanding the Scriptures. I think he ripped the scribes and Pharisees a few times, and some are even recorded, for that very thing. And of course, as you pointed out, the misunderstanding continues. Sorry for the abrasive reply to your point.

He was in the lineage of David, who was a warrior-king, and Israel's greatest ruler, who vanquished the Jews enemies and united/built their earthly kingdom to a stage they have never seen since.

So the Jewish community was earthly-minded in that sense.

Some believe it was why Judas, a member of the Zealots, betrayed him - to possibly force his hand.

Even after his resurrection the disciples asked Jesus..."Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?" (Acts 1:6)

[KittyDuran]

[RedsBaron]

Originally Posted by KittyDuran

Nobody will accuse that guy of being a "chickenhawk."

[GAC]

I'm not a member of the Christian Coalition (don't even know what membership constitutes), but that cartoon is pretty dishonest and demeaning if you ask me. I wonder if that individual who created it had used a Muslim, some other religion, or maybe an ethnic group such as African-Americans, simply because one of their leaders made a stupid remark, how it would have been accepted? Does that then mean that it is representative of ALL? Hardly. Yet it just seems acceptable to malign believers in this country, and characterize them as this cartoon does....mindless fanatics waiting for their marching orders to kill.

Lets see how many Christians are gonna answer the call. People will be waiting a long time.

Can anyone show me evidence of where Christians in this country have organized into groups/causes who have adopted and initiated violence, murder of the innocent, violent opposition to government, and destruction in order to exert their beliefs?

I'm not talking about some lone nutcase, such as a Eric Rudolph, who committed the atrocities he did and them claims it was in the name of God- or this Phelps character who perverts the Bible to preach hate against homosexuals. They are fringe nutcases, and are no way representative of Christians in this country as a whole. And If one would examine Rudolph's religious beliefs, they'd see they weren't biblical or Christian (regardless of what he says). We, as Christians see that - many can't.

Christians, as a whole, may oppose such political "hot button" issues as abortion and gay marriage; but we have never, nor would we ever, condone the methods used by someone who feels God is calling them to violence.

We can differ and offer up our views in protest with having to do so. And we've done a very good job at upholding that principle.

We don't need violence when we win via the ballot box. And even if/when we lose, we never resort to violence in retaliation.

What abut those groups on the far left that use such tactic and disregard for life when supporting their causes such as the environment and animal rights? Does that mean they are representative of everyone on the left/liberal?

But even more importantly - when someone does do something like this, and then use the Bible/Christianity as their reasoning - they are immediately condemned by evangelical Christians - not approved of or accepted.

I haven't talked to an evangelical yet who hasn't stated that what Robertson said wasn't wrong and way out of line. They are embarassed by these types of comments by people of prominence. Many are now even offering apologies for his actions, as it does not represent their views, and more importantly, those of Christianity as a whole.

[GAC]

Originally Posted by RedsBaron

Nobody will accuse that guy of being a "chickenhawk."

The chicken-hawk line is the “Oh, yeah? Your mama!” of antiwar arguments.

I'll post that article by Lowrey from the National Review on this "chickenhawk" term being thrown out by the left. I could care less WHO it's from. WHAT it says, and the counter analogies it uses are RIGHT ON!

It's not like its gona ruin my reputation on here with those from the left anyway!

http://www.nationalreview.com/lowry/...0508260811.asp

“Chicken-Hawk!”
Same old ad hominem.

Invariably, whenever columnists like myself write in support of the Iraq war without having served in the military there, letters flood in deriding us as “chicken hawks.” How can writers support the war without fighting in it themselves? these letter writers ask, although usually not so politely.

The Cindy Sheehan controversy has revived the long-running chicken-hawk argument, since so much of her appeal has to do with her unique standing to pronounce on the war given the sacrifice of her son. Amazingly, after three years, President Bush critics still write chicken-hawk letters as if they have arrived at something clever and cutting, when they are really rehashing a bottom-of-the-barrel ad hominem argument. The chicken-hawk line is the “Oh, yeah? Your mama!” of antiwar arguments.

Its logic, if taken seriously, actually would boost the hawks. If only members of the military — who are overwhelmingly conservative — were considered competent to decide the nation’s posture on matters of war and peace, we would have an even more forward-leaning foreign policy. I’m comfortable letting the 82nd Airborne decide what we do about anti-American rogue states. Are opponents of the war? I’m guessing that even if you let only mothers of fallen soldiers in Iraq direct our Iraq policy, the result would be stay-the-course rather than the immediate pullout favored by Sheehan.

The chicken-hawk argument is nakedly partisan. During the Kosovo war waged by Bill Clinton and supported by Democrats in 1999, a cry didn’t go up from the Left that no one could support the war unless they were willing to strap themselves into B-2 bombers for the 33-hour ride from Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri to Belgrade and back to degrade Serbian infrastructure.

By the same token, we could say to proponents of leaving Saddam Hussein in power: “That’s an illegitimate position unless you yourself are willing to move to Tikrit to live for the duration of Saddam’s regime.” Or to supporters of “containing” Saddam: “You’re a hypocrite until you go help patrol the no-fly zone.” Or to advocates of inspections: “You can’t support them unless you don a baby-blue cap and sniff around his suspected chemical-weapons sites yourself.”

Why should this line of argument be limited to Iraq? “You think we should help fight AIDS in Africa? Well, go work in a clinic in Lavumisa, Swaziland.” “You oppose land mines? Go clear them from the Korean DMZ.” “You think there should be a new U.N. protocol in favor of [insert fashionable cause here]? Then spend interminable hours helping negotiate it yourself.” “Support jobless benefits? Become a clerk at an unemployment office.”

Alas, the argument only swings one way. A few radical antiwar groups, including Code Pink and Veterans for Peace, have released a statement supporting the Iraqi insurgency. But no one is badgering its members about whether they are going to go set off roadside bombs in Baquba. Jihad is so easy when it’s someone else’s son or daughter doing all the suicide bombing!

The chicken-hawk argument is, of course, made in bad faith. If anyone should be — and usually has been — in favor of rigorous civilian control of the military, it is the left. Since when do liberals favor government on the model of Kaiser Wilhelm’s Germany, with the military running amok since civilians don’t have the standing to direct it? Maybe Harry Truman was wrong to fire Douglas MacArthur after all. Maybe no one should have contradicted Curtis LeMay when he offered to bomb North Vietnam back into the Stone Age.

The Iraq war was arrived at through the democratic deliberation of the American public, who — this is how it works — get to decide all sort of questions, even if they are not experts or don’t have personal experience with whatever is at issue. The anti-war movement would have a better chance of convincing the public of its position if it weren’t so fond of arguments that are juvenile, opportunistic and irrelevant.

[RedsBaron]

Man oh man GAC-you are going to get flamed now.

[GAC]

char-broiled chickenhawk is a delicacy in some parts of the country!

[RBA]

I don't care how the "right" defines a chicken-hawk. I know one, when I see/hear/read one.

[RedsBaron]

It is rather obvious that GAC has received his "talking points" and is simply repeating them like a mindless robot.

[GAC]

Originally Posted by RedBloodedAmerican

I don't care how the "right" defines a chicken-hawk. I know one, when I see/hear/read one.

You standing in front of that mirror again?

I really don't care how the left defines it either. Just find it kinda funny when trying to apply the term, they ignore the hypocrisy.

The thing is - when people do stand up and get involved in causes they are passionate about (say - abortion protest for instance. I could sight many others), you can't call them a chickenhawk, so you would find some other derogatory labels for them simply because it doesn't line up with YOUR ideology.

[RBA]

US campaign to ring Chavez alarm fails to resonate
Sun Aug 28, 2005 1:33 PM BST





By Saul Hudson

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - "Since when did Venezuela become a threat?" asked U.S. radio sports talk show host Tony Kornheiser.

"Since gas went over $3," his co-host joked, referring to soaring U.S. prices and the fact Venezuela holds the largest oil reserves outside the Middle East.

The Bush administration has accused leftist President Hugo Chavez of seeking to destabilise Latin American governments and doing too little to combat drug traffickers and Marxist rebels operating around its border with U.S. ally Colombia.

But Washington's campaign to raise the alarm over a major U.S. oil supplier has failed to resonate among members of congress, editorial writers, think-tank analysts and the public.

In the void, Pat Robertson, a former Republican presidential candidate and key supporter of President George W. Bush, called last week for Chavez to be assassinated for exporting communism and Muslim extremism.

As wild as his charges appeared, the attack came against the backdrop of largely unsubstantiated Bush administration accusations and Chavez said they represented the view of the right-wing U.S. elite.

"The Bush administration has tried to make Venezuela seem like a spooky, murky place," said Larry Birns of the Washington based think-tank the Council on Hemispheric Affairs. "But they have cried wolf too often. Without serious evidence, you can't take their accusations seriously."

The Bush administration distanced itself from Robertson and the evangelist leader grudgingly apologised but by the end of the week even sports talk radio was ridiculing the idea Venezuela posed a threat.

ACTIONS LOUDER THAN LOUD WORDS

Venezuela's ambassador in Washington, Bernardo Alvarez, said U.S. complaints were baseless and driven by American right-wingers, who fear Chavez's ideology of spreading oil wealth to the majority poor resonates in a region rejecting American-prescribed free-market models.

Chavez, who routinely insults Bush and claims Washington plots to oust him, can match Robertson's rhetoric.

But this month he let his actions undercut U.S. charges that he funds groups trying to oust Ecuador's government

With Ecuador facing a political crisis where protesters halted oil production, Chavez helped rescue the fragile government by lending its poor neighbour crude so that it would meet its export commitments.

The Bush administration is under pressure to hold off on its accusations.

Sen. Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican, complained that U.S. Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's repeated criticism of Venezuela during a Latin American tour could undermine efforts to improve cooperation on such issues as drug trafficking.

"It may well be helpful to at least have a moratorium on adverse comments on Venezuela," the head of the Senate Judiciary Committee wrote to Rumsfeld last week.

But that advice seems to go against the administration's instincts.

A congressional official, who asked not to be named because he was relating a private conversation, said a bipartisan delegation of U.S. legislators met Condoleezza Rice before she became secretary of state to urge her to reach out to Chavez.

According to the official, Rice cut the lawmakers off and said, "We just don't like him."