Pat Robertson: U.S. should 'take out' Venezuela's Chavez
- Thread starter rick_reno
- Start date
- Status
gunsmith
member
javafiend, your liberalness is showing!
Really? where & when did they say that? did you get that from DU or MoveOn?
Please provide proof of these serious accusations.
btw, the NY Times is really ,really, liberal
Really? where & when did they say that? did you get that from DU or MoveOn?
Please provide proof of these serious accusations.
btw, the NY Times is really ,really, liberal
stevelyn:
The question "why" was immaterial in my query. The hypothetical policy goal/outcome is also immaterial, as it was a question of means. So, if you were the man at the helm and your policy goal would be met by eihter means, which would you choose?
Relations between nations exist in a Hobbesian "state of nature." A nation does what it must to survive. Serious entanglement in Zimbabwe is unlikely, since Mugabe's paradise, at present, poses no threat to us. There will always be serious entanglement in oil-producing states, since they can pose a threat to the USA by using their oil revenues against our interests or damage our economy by jiggering with the oil market.
What gives the US gov't the right to influence the actions of other nations?
Well, our government was constituted to serve the interests of Americans, not Venezuelans or Libyans. I have no problem with our government favoring the welfare & interests of Americans in preference to all others.
I think many in our gov't have come to the conclusion that fighting militant islam is best done in their backyard rather than New York or Des Moines. The fighting will occur, as the jihadis have stated their intention to do so and they have demonstrated the means to attack us on our own soil. To be blunt: I'd rather see their structures blasted & their folks caught in the cross fire than see it here. It is cheaper to replace their infrastructure (if we deem that necessary) and I value fellow Americans over foreigners.
I do favor oil exploration in ANWR, though I don't have any illusion that it would be able to replace all the oil the US imports from elsewhere. There just is not likely to be enough of it.
The question "why" was immaterial in my query. The hypothetical policy goal/outcome is also immaterial, as it was a question of means. So, if you were the man at the helm and your policy goal would be met by eihter means, which would you choose?
Relations between nations exist in a Hobbesian "state of nature." A nation does what it must to survive. Serious entanglement in Zimbabwe is unlikely, since Mugabe's paradise, at present, poses no threat to us. There will always be serious entanglement in oil-producing states, since they can pose a threat to the USA by using their oil revenues against our interests or damage our economy by jiggering with the oil market.
What gives the US gov't the right to influence the actions of other nations?
Well, our government was constituted to serve the interests of Americans, not Venezuelans or Libyans. I have no problem with our government favoring the welfare & interests of Americans in preference to all others.
I think many in our gov't have come to the conclusion that fighting militant islam is best done in their backyard rather than New York or Des Moines. The fighting will occur, as the jihadis have stated their intention to do so and they have demonstrated the means to attack us on our own soil. To be blunt: I'd rather see their structures blasted & their folks caught in the cross fire than see it here. It is cheaper to replace their infrastructure (if we deem that necessary) and I value fellow Americans over foreigners.
I do favor oil exploration in ANWR, though I don't have any illusion that it would be able to replace all the oil the US imports from elsewhere. There just is not likely to be enough of it.
Brett Bellmore
Member
I have to agree that Robertson has a point. The political elite across the world may have this mutual agreement going that, when they fight it out, it's the peons who get to do the dying, but that's no reason us peons have to buy into the concept.
You look at what somebody like Mugabe is doing... I think the world might need "assasins without borders" more than the doctors; It would give them a LOT less to do.
OTOH, I'm dubious about assasinating elected leaders, until they actually give you a legitimate cause for war.
You look at what somebody like Mugabe is doing... I think the world might need "assasins without borders" more than the doctors; It would give them a LOT less to do.
OTOH, I'm dubious about assasinating elected leaders, until they actually give you a legitimate cause for war.
I am no fan of either Pat Roberston or Buchananan.........
But I have to completely disagree with Stevelyn when he quips:
"Pat Robertson and people of his ilk like Jerry Falwell et al, are no
different than Osama and company. Just religious fantics by another
name that have a talent for making big bucks off ancient Hebrew
mythology. They have spent resources trying to turn us into a
theocracy without the violence....oh wait..... bombing family planning
clinics and murdering medical staff that work there is violence"
Let's see, there have been exactly how many bombngs of family planning clinics in the last 10 years????????? And how many of those were directly commanded by Robertson himself??????????????
And, I'm still waiting to see the following:
1) Pat Robertson and his followers making propaganda videos of themselves holding down and decapitating numerous secular humanists with big knives just because they happen to be secular humanists.
2) Pat Robertson's followers hijacking some airliners to use as bombs in a suicide mission against Las Vegas which is, afterall, Sin City.
3) People who agree with Pat Roberston kidnapping, holding hostage and then killing 300 school children whose parents are secular humanists.
4) Pat Robertson's followers blowing up commuters trains in two European countries merely because those European countries aren't following Robertson's particular brand of religion.
5) Pat Robertson issuing instructions to his followers that they will automatically enter paradise and get all kinds of sexual thrills so long as they die in an attempt to kill secular humanists, Jews, moderate Christitians, and anyone else who qualifies as an "Infidel."
Stevelyn, the above list is only five items long. I'll even cut you some slack and say that I'll agree with you after I see only three of them happen.
I'll give you a deadline of the next five years even......If three of the above five happen in the next five years, I'll publically agree with you.
Until that time, however........
hillbilly
But I have to completely disagree with Stevelyn when he quips:
"Pat Robertson and people of his ilk like Jerry Falwell et al, are no
different than Osama and company. Just religious fantics by another
name that have a talent for making big bucks off ancient Hebrew
mythology. They have spent resources trying to turn us into a
theocracy without the violence....oh wait..... bombing family planning
clinics and murdering medical staff that work there is violence"
Let's see, there have been exactly how many bombngs of family planning clinics in the last 10 years????????? And how many of those were directly commanded by Robertson himself??????????????
And, I'm still waiting to see the following:
1) Pat Robertson and his followers making propaganda videos of themselves holding down and decapitating numerous secular humanists with big knives just because they happen to be secular humanists.
2) Pat Robertson's followers hijacking some airliners to use as bombs in a suicide mission against Las Vegas which is, afterall, Sin City.
3) People who agree with Pat Roberston kidnapping, holding hostage and then killing 300 school children whose parents are secular humanists.
4) Pat Robertson's followers blowing up commuters trains in two European countries merely because those European countries aren't following Robertson's particular brand of religion.
5) Pat Robertson issuing instructions to his followers that they will automatically enter paradise and get all kinds of sexual thrills so long as they die in an attempt to kill secular humanists, Jews, moderate Christitians, and anyone else who qualifies as an "Infidel."
Stevelyn, the above list is only five items long. I'll even cut you some slack and say that I'll agree with you after I see only three of them happen.
I'll give you a deadline of the next five years even......If three of the above five happen in the next five years, I'll publically agree with you.
Until that time, however........
hillbilly
ken grant
Member
Robertson
Robertson was a great friend of Mobuto ( one of the worlds worst rulers) when was in charge of the Congo. WHY!!!!!!!!!!!
There was money to be made there in diamonds and gold. Operation Blessing was funded by Robertson's followers(big waste) donations. Millions was wasted on trying to farm there on land that was not suitable for farming. Much was spent on equipment and getting it there and then left to rust.
It was all a front for diamonds and gold.
Robertson was a great friend of Mobuto ( one of the worlds worst rulers) when was in charge of the Congo. WHY!!!!!!!!!!!
There was money to be made there in diamonds and gold. Operation Blessing was funded by Robertson's followers(big waste) donations. Millions was wasted on trying to farm there on land that was not suitable for farming. Much was spent on equipment and getting it there and then left to rust.
It was all a front for diamonds and gold.
Waitone
Member
I just love moral equivalent argumentation, particularly when those making the argument are more than likely ignorant of doctrines of belief on both sides.
Credo of the web forum: "My uninformed opinion is just as valid as your uninformed opinion." Crystal clear example right here.
Credo of the web forum: "My uninformed opinion is just as valid as your uninformed opinion." Crystal clear example right here.
stevelyn
Member
Hillbilly,
I wasn't suggesting that Robertson issued the orders for clinic bombings or murder. What I am suggesting is that with all the venom he and those like him spew on the issue and others is the same as the mullahs. In that there will be someone who is influenced by it enough who'll take extreme measures because that's what they've been led to believe the Invisible Man of their particular religion wants them to do.
No, Robertson isn't holding people down and whacking their heads off. It's probably not in their nature to do so.
However, I've seen his CBN broadcasts and calling it propaganda isn't a stretch.
As to the other forms of violence you mention......again it isn't in their nature to engage in it themselves. Their rhetoric will likely induce someone else to do it for them. Robertson and his ilk will use what they always have.............money and influence in power circles that care to pay attention to him. Money that folks send to him without question.
jfruser,
Now that you clarified that a bit, given the choice I would opt for an assasination before committing military forces for an overthrow. However, we have a law that prohibits us from specifically targeting heads-of-state. You'll have to forgive my ignorance on the details of the law, because I don't at what point that law becomes moot or if it even does. It's pretty clear that we were trying to ram bunker busters down Saddam's throat, but OTOH we didn't whack him when he was found in his gopher hole. So who knows? We're only a bunch of mushrooms ...........kept in total darkness and only fed horse$*!^.
I wasn't suggesting that Robertson issued the orders for clinic bombings or murder. What I am suggesting is that with all the venom he and those like him spew on the issue and others is the same as the mullahs. In that there will be someone who is influenced by it enough who'll take extreme measures because that's what they've been led to believe the Invisible Man of their particular religion wants them to do.
No, Robertson isn't holding people down and whacking their heads off. It's probably not in their nature to do so.
However, I've seen his CBN broadcasts and calling it propaganda isn't a stretch.
As to the other forms of violence you mention......again it isn't in their nature to engage in it themselves. Their rhetoric will likely induce someone else to do it for them. Robertson and his ilk will use what they always have.............money and influence in power circles that care to pay attention to him. Money that folks send to him without question.
jfruser,
Now that you clarified that a bit, given the choice I would opt for an assasination before committing military forces for an overthrow. However, we have a law that prohibits us from specifically targeting heads-of-state. You'll have to forgive my ignorance on the details of the law, because I don't at what point that law becomes moot or if it even does. It's pretty clear that we were trying to ram bunker busters down Saddam's throat, but OTOH we didn't whack him when he was found in his gopher hole. So who knows? We're only a bunch of mushrooms ...........kept in total darkness and only fed horse$*!^.
The thing that gets me is this:
Yeah, you could make a convincing argument that republican forms of government are (mostly) better than the alternatives out there (not democracy, as so many in government and the media want to promote), but in no way does that give us the legitimacy required to force our chosen form of government on others. Same with market economies -- they work, but others should be able to make their own decisions.
I just don't get why it's OK for the US to assassinate foreign leaders like this. That's a recipe for chaos. Would you argue that the Chinese have the "right" to execute US leaders the same way you're arguing we have the "right" to behave this way? How about Islamic leaders -- if they can make the "but the US is evil" argument, do they get a free pass on assassinations too?
Short-sighted, selfish, wrong, and (quite possibly) evil. "But it costs less than an ill-conceived war in the name of national (and corporate) interest" isn't terribly compelling either.
<sigh>
- There's this other country out there.
- Somehow, this other country finds a leader. He may/may not be "democratically elected," but most in the world would agree that his power is based on some source of legitimacy (though in China, for example, this may just be the "legitimacy" of a huge Army, but for the history of mankind this has been legitimate enough).
- We in the US take issue with the way he runs his country, or decide he's not pro-US trade interests enough, or he's not tough enough on Those That Don't Like Americans.
- So, we have a discussion on whether it's right or not to execute this guy -- the legitimate leader of a foreign nation -- because (we're told) doing so will be good for American interests.
Yeah, you could make a convincing argument that republican forms of government are (mostly) better than the alternatives out there (not democracy, as so many in government and the media want to promote), but in no way does that give us the legitimacy required to force our chosen form of government on others. Same with market economies -- they work, but others should be able to make their own decisions.
I just don't get why it's OK for the US to assassinate foreign leaders like this. That's a recipe for chaos. Would you argue that the Chinese have the "right" to execute US leaders the same way you're arguing we have the "right" to behave this way? How about Islamic leaders -- if they can make the "but the US is evil" argument, do they get a free pass on assassinations too?
Short-sighted, selfish, wrong, and (quite possibly) evil. "But it costs less than an ill-conceived war in the name of national (and corporate) interest" isn't terribly compelling either.
<sigh>
Waitone
Member
Yea, we have laws and like all laws it depends on one's interpretation. Can't off Saddam with a 1911 loaded with 230 grains of hardball, but we can do him with 4 2,000 lb. JDAM's out of a B2 from 30,000 feet. One's good, one's bad.
I can't get outraged when I see the natives hopping up and down about so-called moral outrages when it is clear one is engaging in selective morality. What Robertson said was ill advised, not wrong, just ill-advised.
Marshall
Member
Derek, you might read up more on Chavez, he's more than anti-US, he's a terrorist, minimally a supporter and sympathizer.
The Weekly Standard
Guerrilla Nation
Caracas
SIMON TRINIDAD is the nom de guerre of Ricardo Palmera, a high-ranking terrorist of the Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia (FARC), the deadliest and largest terrorist organization in the world. Thanks to Colombia's president, Alvaro Uribe, Trinidad was extradited to the United States last month. He now awaits trial for a lengthy list of crimes involving the recent kidnapping and murder of American citizens in Colombia. Trinidad's capture was a victory in the fight against global terror (see Note, below), but it is unlikely that the FARC terrorists will be defeated as long as Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez continues to use his government to harbor, equip, and protect them.
Since assuming the presidency of Venezuela in 1999, Lieutenant Colonel Hugo Chavez has often sympathized with global terrorism. Not only has he proclaimed his "brotherhood" with Saddam Hussein and bestowed kind words on the Taliban, but he also maintains close economic and diplomatic ties with the leaders of Iran and Libya. Moreover, President Chavez is increasingly identified with the FARC terrorists. Although the full extent of Chavez's involvement with FARC is unknown, he has been accused of everything from sympathizing with the group to providing it with weapons and monetary support. The allegations against Chavez are numerous and it is likely that some of them are either exaggerated or untrue. Even so, President Chavez's activities reveal a consistent pattern of sympathy for terrorists.
The FARC terrorist group has been fighting the democratic government of Colombia for almost 40 years. Founded as the
armed wing of the Colombian Communist party, this 16,000-strong terrorist force recruits children and funds its activities with billions of dollars collected as taxes on the cocaine trade. The group's explicit objective is to take Colombia by force. In pursuing its mission, FARC terrorists have kidnapped, extorted, and executed thousands of innocent civilians, bombed buildings, assassinated hundreds of political leaders, and, with two other local terrorist organizations, have turned Colombia into one of the most violent and dangerous countries in the world. All in all, FARC has caused the deaths of more than 100,000 people.
The U.S. Department of State has designated FARC a Foreign Terrorist Organization--yet FARC leaders are welcomed in Venezuela and treated as heads of state. The prominent FARC leader Olga Marin, for example, spoke on the floor of Venezuela's National Assembly in the summer of 2000, praising Hugo Chavez as a hero of the rebel movement and thanking the Venezuelan government for its "support." Weeks later, the Colombian government announced that it had confiscated from terrorists more than 400 rifles and machine guns bearing the insignia of the Venezuelan armed forces. Although President Chavez claimed this was a smear campaign against him and that many of those weapons could have come into terrorist hands as a result of border skirmishes with Venezuelan armed forces, his explanation was less than plausible, since some of the guns had sequential serial numbers and were therefore likely part of a unified arms shipment.
In February 2001, months after the Chavez government denied supporting FARC, the capture of a Colombian terrorist revived the debate. Jose Maria Ballestas, a leader of Colombia's other left-wing terrorist organization, the National Liberation Army (ELN), was captured in Venezuela's capital by Interpol operatives working in conjunction with the Colombian police. Although Ballestas was wanted for a 1999 commercial airliner hijacking, he was immediately released from custody by order of the Chavez government. As the Colombian media cried foul, Chavez officials denied that Ballestas had ever been arrested and claimed that "news" of his arrest was actually a story concocted by enemies of the Chavez government. When Colombian officials responded by releasing a video of the arrest, the Chavez government tried to claim that Ballestas was seeking asylum from political persecution in Colombia. As diplomatic tension reached a fever-pitch, Venezuela re-arrested Ballestas and grudgingly extradited him to Colombia.
Seeking to repair relations with Colombia's president, President Chavez paid a state visit to Colombia in May 2001. While there, he allowed a FARC associate, Diego Serna, to serve as his personal bodyguard. Serna was arrested months later and told the magazine Cambio (published by Nobel laureate Gabriel Garcia Marquez) that President Chavez was in constant and secret touch with the FARC leadership. Serna remarked that in Colombian television broadcasts of the presidential summit "you can see not only our closeness, but also the confidence and the comments he made to me on various occasions." Indeed, the footage shows Chavez laughing, jostling, and whispering in Serna's ear.
Three months after diplomatic tension over the Serna incident died down, the Chavez-FARC connection surfaced again when Venezuela's intelligence chief, Jesus Urdaneta, publicly denounced Chavez for supporting FARC. A lifelong friend and military colleague of President Chavez, Urdaneta publicized documents showing that the Chavez government offered fuel, money, and other support to the terrorists. The documents included signed letters from a Chavez aide detailing an agreement to provide support for FARC. That aide later became Chavez's minister of justice, a position which gave him oversight of the entire Venezuelan security apparatus.
Less than a week after Urdaneta went public, a group of female journalists released a video showing meetings between Venezuelan military leaders and FARC guerilla commanders. The next day, hundreds of miles away, the Colombian Air Force captured a Venezuelan plane loaded with ammunition. Colombian intelligence established that the supplies were meant for the
FARC terrorists.
THE COLOMBIAN GOVERNMENT is currently embroiled in the most momentous FARC-related matter since Simon Trinidad's extradition. On December 14, 2004, Ricardo Granda, widely known as FARC's "foreign secretary," was arrested on the Colombian border. One of the most senior, well connected, and highly skilled political strategists in FARC's history, Granda had been living in Venezuela's capital.
In Caracas Granda enjoyed Venezuelan citizenship (granted by government decree), took advantage of state-supplied protection, and even, on December 8, participated in a government-sponsored networking conference attended by Chavez, Daniel Ortega, and other revolutionary socialists. Today, Chavez expresses fury that Granda was captured, lamenting that Granda was apprehended in Caracas, stuffed in the trunk of a car, and driven to Colombia where he was then given to Colombian authorities by junior Venezuelan military and police officers working for cash rewards. The Venezuelan government has announced it will issue arrest warrants for the Colombian Defense secretary and for the Colombian attorney general, who are to be charged with "kidnapping."
THE COLOMBIAN GOVERNMENT has understandably become exasperated by the impunity with which Chavez has permitted terrorists to use Venezuela as a safe haven and justifies its actions by claiming that the United Nations forbids members to harbor terrorists in either an "active or passive" manner. Last week the Colombian foreign secretary went public with a list of senior FARC terrorists living in Venezuela.
Thus far, the U.S. State Department has been exceedingly tame with the Venezuelan government. Perhaps the Granda case will spur the new secretary of state to focus more on terrorist threats plaguing our own hemisphere. Should she do so, she will effect a necessary and long overdue shift in U.S.-Venezuela relations.
NOTE: FARC terrorist Simon Trinidad's indictment last month includes information about the murder and kidnapping of American citizens in Colombia last year. Trinidad's actions were not exceptional; killing Americans is routine for FARC. For example, in 1999 FARC terrorists killed three American activists who were in Colombia on a humanitarian mission. They were Terence Freitas, 24; Ingrid Washinowatok, 41; and Lahe'ena'e Gay, 39.
Apprehended after attending a religious ceremony on an Indian reservation, Freitas, Washinowatok, and Gay were initially held for ransom but were later taken into Venezuela and executed in cold blood. Washinowatok, a New Yorker, was the head of the Fund for Four Directions, a Rockefeller-supported charity which helps indigenous peoples. Lahe'ena'e Gay was an award-winning Hawaiian photographer. Terry Freitas was an environmental activist from California. All three progressive activists had colorful life stories. Washinowatok, for example, was a Menominee Indian from Minnesota, daughter of a tribal chieftain, and personal friend of Nobel Peace Prize laureate Rigoberta Menchu. She studied in Havana and is described by her friends as a champion of the oppressed. Her lifeless body, found just inside the Venezuelan border, was impossible to identify since her face had been destroyed by gunshot. The autopsy revealed that she had been forced to march barefoot through the jungle for several days despite having been bitten by a poisonous spider. She was only identified when her foundation's American Express card was found hidden in her clothing. Washinowatok and her friends were executed for one chilling reason: They were Americans
The Weekly Standard
Guerrilla Nation
Caracas
SIMON TRINIDAD is the nom de guerre of Ricardo Palmera, a high-ranking terrorist of the Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia (FARC), the deadliest and largest terrorist organization in the world. Thanks to Colombia's president, Alvaro Uribe, Trinidad was extradited to the United States last month. He now awaits trial for a lengthy list of crimes involving the recent kidnapping and murder of American citizens in Colombia. Trinidad's capture was a victory in the fight against global terror (see Note, below), but it is unlikely that the FARC terrorists will be defeated as long as Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez continues to use his government to harbor, equip, and protect them.
Since assuming the presidency of Venezuela in 1999, Lieutenant Colonel Hugo Chavez has often sympathized with global terrorism. Not only has he proclaimed his "brotherhood" with Saddam Hussein and bestowed kind words on the Taliban, but he also maintains close economic and diplomatic ties with the leaders of Iran and Libya. Moreover, President Chavez is increasingly identified with the FARC terrorists. Although the full extent of Chavez's involvement with FARC is unknown, he has been accused of everything from sympathizing with the group to providing it with weapons and monetary support. The allegations against Chavez are numerous and it is likely that some of them are either exaggerated or untrue. Even so, President Chavez's activities reveal a consistent pattern of sympathy for terrorists.
The FARC terrorist group has been fighting the democratic government of Colombia for almost 40 years. Founded as the
armed wing of the Colombian Communist party, this 16,000-strong terrorist force recruits children and funds its activities with billions of dollars collected as taxes on the cocaine trade. The group's explicit objective is to take Colombia by force. In pursuing its mission, FARC terrorists have kidnapped, extorted, and executed thousands of innocent civilians, bombed buildings, assassinated hundreds of political leaders, and, with two other local terrorist organizations, have turned Colombia into one of the most violent and dangerous countries in the world. All in all, FARC has caused the deaths of more than 100,000 people.
The U.S. Department of State has designated FARC a Foreign Terrorist Organization--yet FARC leaders are welcomed in Venezuela and treated as heads of state. The prominent FARC leader Olga Marin, for example, spoke on the floor of Venezuela's National Assembly in the summer of 2000, praising Hugo Chavez as a hero of the rebel movement and thanking the Venezuelan government for its "support." Weeks later, the Colombian government announced that it had confiscated from terrorists more than 400 rifles and machine guns bearing the insignia of the Venezuelan armed forces. Although President Chavez claimed this was a smear campaign against him and that many of those weapons could have come into terrorist hands as a result of border skirmishes with Venezuelan armed forces, his explanation was less than plausible, since some of the guns had sequential serial numbers and were therefore likely part of a unified arms shipment.
In February 2001, months after the Chavez government denied supporting FARC, the capture of a Colombian terrorist revived the debate. Jose Maria Ballestas, a leader of Colombia's other left-wing terrorist organization, the National Liberation Army (ELN), was captured in Venezuela's capital by Interpol operatives working in conjunction with the Colombian police. Although Ballestas was wanted for a 1999 commercial airliner hijacking, he was immediately released from custody by order of the Chavez government. As the Colombian media cried foul, Chavez officials denied that Ballestas had ever been arrested and claimed that "news" of his arrest was actually a story concocted by enemies of the Chavez government. When Colombian officials responded by releasing a video of the arrest, the Chavez government tried to claim that Ballestas was seeking asylum from political persecution in Colombia. As diplomatic tension reached a fever-pitch, Venezuela re-arrested Ballestas and grudgingly extradited him to Colombia.
Seeking to repair relations with Colombia's president, President Chavez paid a state visit to Colombia in May 2001. While there, he allowed a FARC associate, Diego Serna, to serve as his personal bodyguard. Serna was arrested months later and told the magazine Cambio (published by Nobel laureate Gabriel Garcia Marquez) that President Chavez was in constant and secret touch with the FARC leadership. Serna remarked that in Colombian television broadcasts of the presidential summit "you can see not only our closeness, but also the confidence and the comments he made to me on various occasions." Indeed, the footage shows Chavez laughing, jostling, and whispering in Serna's ear.
Three months after diplomatic tension over the Serna incident died down, the Chavez-FARC connection surfaced again when Venezuela's intelligence chief, Jesus Urdaneta, publicly denounced Chavez for supporting FARC. A lifelong friend and military colleague of President Chavez, Urdaneta publicized documents showing that the Chavez government offered fuel, money, and other support to the terrorists. The documents included signed letters from a Chavez aide detailing an agreement to provide support for FARC. That aide later became Chavez's minister of justice, a position which gave him oversight of the entire Venezuelan security apparatus.
Less than a week after Urdaneta went public, a group of female journalists released a video showing meetings between Venezuelan military leaders and FARC guerilla commanders. The next day, hundreds of miles away, the Colombian Air Force captured a Venezuelan plane loaded with ammunition. Colombian intelligence established that the supplies were meant for the
FARC terrorists.
THE COLOMBIAN GOVERNMENT is currently embroiled in the most momentous FARC-related matter since Simon Trinidad's extradition. On December 14, 2004, Ricardo Granda, widely known as FARC's "foreign secretary," was arrested on the Colombian border. One of the most senior, well connected, and highly skilled political strategists in FARC's history, Granda had been living in Venezuela's capital.
In Caracas Granda enjoyed Venezuelan citizenship (granted by government decree), took advantage of state-supplied protection, and even, on December 8, participated in a government-sponsored networking conference attended by Chavez, Daniel Ortega, and other revolutionary socialists. Today, Chavez expresses fury that Granda was captured, lamenting that Granda was apprehended in Caracas, stuffed in the trunk of a car, and driven to Colombia where he was then given to Colombian authorities by junior Venezuelan military and police officers working for cash rewards. The Venezuelan government has announced it will issue arrest warrants for the Colombian Defense secretary and for the Colombian attorney general, who are to be charged with "kidnapping."
THE COLOMBIAN GOVERNMENT has understandably become exasperated by the impunity with which Chavez has permitted terrorists to use Venezuela as a safe haven and justifies its actions by claiming that the United Nations forbids members to harbor terrorists in either an "active or passive" manner. Last week the Colombian foreign secretary went public with a list of senior FARC terrorists living in Venezuela.
Thus far, the U.S. State Department has been exceedingly tame with the Venezuelan government. Perhaps the Granda case will spur the new secretary of state to focus more on terrorist threats plaguing our own hemisphere. Should she do so, she will effect a necessary and long overdue shift in U.S.-Venezuela relations.
NOTE: FARC terrorist Simon Trinidad's indictment last month includes information about the murder and kidnapping of American citizens in Colombia last year. Trinidad's actions were not exceptional; killing Americans is routine for FARC. For example, in 1999 FARC terrorists killed three American activists who were in Colombia on a humanitarian mission. They were Terence Freitas, 24; Ingrid Washinowatok, 41; and Lahe'ena'e Gay, 39.
Apprehended after attending a religious ceremony on an Indian reservation, Freitas, Washinowatok, and Gay were initially held for ransom but were later taken into Venezuela and executed in cold blood. Washinowatok, a New Yorker, was the head of the Fund for Four Directions, a Rockefeller-supported charity which helps indigenous peoples. Lahe'ena'e Gay was an award-winning Hawaiian photographer. Terry Freitas was an environmental activist from California. All three progressive activists had colorful life stories. Washinowatok, for example, was a Menominee Indian from Minnesota, daughter of a tribal chieftain, and personal friend of Nobel Peace Prize laureate Rigoberta Menchu. She studied in Havana and is described by her friends as a champion of the oppressed. Her lifeless body, found just inside the Venezuelan border, was impossible to identify since her face had been destroyed by gunshot. The autopsy revealed that she had been forced to march barefoot through the jungle for several days despite having been bitten by a poisonous spider. She was only identified when her foundation's American Express card was found hidden in her clothing. Washinowatok and her friends were executed for one chilling reason: They were Americans
longeyes
member
Following the high road is an admirable thing. Of course, when your enemies are determined to take out that road, you might have to rethink your pilgrimage.
Selective morality, absolutely. Saddam tried to kill our leadership. We attempted to, aerially, to return the favor. Assassination is just one more military tactic. In the end it is about cultural survival--is there a higher moral imperative than that?
Robertson has said the unsayable. Maybe that makes him a naif. It might be more naive to sit back, well-oiled with unction, and watch Chavez lay plans that could end up killing millions of Americans.
Selective morality, absolutely. Saddam tried to kill our leadership. We attempted to, aerially, to return the favor. Assassination is just one more military tactic. In the end it is about cultural survival--is there a higher moral imperative than that?
Robertson has said the unsayable. Maybe that makes him a naif. It might be more naive to sit back, well-oiled with unction, and watch Chavez lay plans that could end up killing millions of Americans.
Glock Glockler
Member
I just don't get why it's OK for the US to assassinate foreign leaders like this. That's a recipe for chaos. Would you argue that the Chinese have the "right" to execute US leaders the same way you're arguing we have the "right" to behave this way? How about Islamic leaders -- if they can make the "but the US is evil" argument, do they get a free pass on assassinations too?
Derek,
Why should the little people always end up dying in wars? It seems that if Hitler could have been assassinated early in WWII or even before it began the world could have been spared a lot of death and destruction. Letting loose cannons ,who are intent on doing the US as much harm as possible, breathe seems like a recipe for chaos.
Let the Secret Service earn their paychecks.
Derek,
Why should the little people always end up dying in wars? It seems that if Hitler could have been assassinated early in WWII or even before it began the world could have been spared a lot of death and destruction. Letting loose cannons ,who are intent on doing the US as much harm as possible, breathe seems like a recipe for chaos.
Let the Secret Service earn their paychecks.
The question then becomes: which poses a greater threat to the US, some petty dictator, or the legitimizing of assassination as a tool of foreign policy?"Glock Glockler said:
I guess it depends. How much damage was done to the US by assassination being a legitimate tool (which it was and is under the right circumstances)? Where is the petty dictator located and does he have the resources to become a major dictator (i.e. an Austrian corporal who was allowed by the British and French to grow up into a big dictator)?
Lobotomy Boy
Member
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2004
- Messages
- 2,449
I'm pretty sure that no American has the "right" to advocate killing another person. I'm fairly well-versed on First Amendment rights, and my guess is that if you go around advocating another person should be killed, unless that person is Osama Bin Laden you might find yourself in hot water. If you don't believe me, try it for yourself and let us know how the experiment worked out for you.
The whole concept of meddling in other country's internal affairs is an anathema to the founding principles of the United States IMO. We should avoid 'foreign entanglements' of any kind, especially of a military nature. There is no reason for a military presence all over the globe 60 years after the end of WWII. The practice of encouraging, recruiting and financing surrogates to fight battles in other countries needs to be abandoned. Foreign aid, except direct humanitarian aid, should be discontinued.
If and when we are presented with an unavoidable threat to our security, we should not engage in 'limited warfare'. Rather, we should identify, isolate and utterly destroy that threat.
If and when we are presented with an unavoidable threat to our security, we should not engage in 'limited warfare'. Rather, we should identify, isolate and utterly destroy that threat.
If he is a preacher, I don't think the commandment, Thou Shalt Not Murder, can be bent for political and economic utility.
Robertson is one of the dildos that agreed with Falwell that God allowed 9/11 because guys in the USA were playing with each other's tushes. A worthless human being.
Robertson is one of the dildos that agreed with Falwell that God allowed 9/11 because guys in the USA were playing with each other's tushes. A worthless human being.
Actually, you can advocate pretty much whatever you like (excluding the violent overthrow of the gov't). What you can't do is advocate it in such a way that people inclined to carry out such actions will do so based on your prompting. It's one thing to say "we should kill X." That's legal. If you say it when you know or should have known that a person within "earshot" was likely to do it based on your comment, you start getting into trouble.
"The ACLU has got to take a lot of blame for this … I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way—all of them who have tried to secularize America—I point the finger in their face and say, 'You helped this happen.'" Falwell's rationale is that the secularization of America has provoked God "to lift the curtain and allow the enemies of America to give us probably what we deserve."
700 Club host Pat Robertson, who said he "totally concurs" with Falwell's assessment.
See this link of the transcript posted by a conservative.
See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Falwell
700 Club host Pat Robertson, who said he "totally concurs" with Falwell's assessment.
See this link of the transcript posted by a conservative.
See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Falwell
Everything's okay now. Robertson has said his remarks were misinterpreted. He only meant we could do something about Chavez . . . like using "special operators" to kidnap him. 
His first comment made him look stupid; his attempt at damage control confirmed it.
His first comment made him look stupid; his attempt at damage control confirmed it.
Actually, we don't know that. It's possible that he was misinterpreted, and was only offering up assassination as one of many things that could be done. Thus, it was a discussion of options, not an advocacy of a particular one.
The problem is that when running damage control, you want to minimize further damage, not add to it. This is the equivalent of telling your wife "I absolutely don't want to sleep with your sister. Your mother is much hottter."
The problem is that when running damage control, you want to minimize further damage, not add to it. This is the equivalent of telling your wife "I absolutely don't want to sleep with your sister. Your mother is much hottter."
Read his exact words. How much more explicit does it have to be?
"You know, I don't know about this doctrine of assassination, but 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. And I don't think any oil shipments will stop. But this man is a terrific danger and the United ... This is in our sphere of influence, so we can't let this happen. We have the Monroe Doctrine, we have other doctrines that we have announced. And without question, this is a dangerous enemy to our south, controlling a huge pool of oil, that could hurt us very badly. We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability. We don't need another $200 billion war to get rid of one, you know, strong-arm dictator. It's a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with." -- Pat Robertson, 700 Club, 22 August 2005. Source.
Smoke
Member
Chavez may or may not need killing, whether sanctioned by the U.S. Government or Pat Robertson.
My contention is that if we are going to loose the covert assassins on people that "just need killin'" Senor Chavez is way down the list.
Smoke
P.S. I have the list.
My contention is that if we are going to loose the covert assassins on people that "just need killin'" Senor Chavez is way down the list.
Smoke
P.S. I have the list.
- Status