O G San O G San

Thou Shalt Not Kill

Thou Shalt Not Kill

I very rarely do these link based-blogs but I wanted to share this video with as many people as possible. This is American fundamentalist Pat Robertson calling for the murder of Venezualan president Hugo Chavez: Link

Where does one even start with this extraordianry call to jihad against Chavez? Well, I suppose one could reflect on Robertson's breathtaking hypocrisy, that he, supposedly a man of God, is calling for the murder (and let's not use euphemisms) the murder of another human being. Mr. Robertson's "flexible" interpretation of the ten commandments reminds me of an old saying about Northern Ireland: "far too much religion, far too little Christianity."

But, even allowing for Pat's hazy recollection of Moses' dos and don'ts, his statement still displays all the inate logic and clear thinking of a drunken ten year old:

There was a popular coup that overthrew him [Chavez].

No, Pat, there was a CIA-backed elite coup.

And what did the United States State Department do about it? Virtually nothing.

Apart from being the only country in the world to recognise the new regime.

And as a result, within about 48 hours that coup was broken;

That coup was "broken", Paddy, by a popular uprising.

He has destroyed the Venezuelan economy

If by "destroyed" you mean "distributed his country's extraordinary oil wealth a little more equitably", then you're bang on the money.

he's going to make that a launching pad for communist infiltration and Muslim extremism all over the continent.

Ah, yes, well-known Islamic fundamentalist Hugo Chavez. I think he's the one behind 9-11 myself.

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.

Assassination: the cost-effective way to regime change! In today's "downsized" world, labour-intensive means of toppling foreign governments, such as the use of large land-based invasion forces, are so passe.

And I don't think any oil shipments will stop.

Oh, you don't "think" so. Great. I'm sure the Big Man has given you some sort of reassurance on that point. I have faith.

But this man is a terrific danger

Were you looking in a mirror when you said that part?

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.

Oh, you've announced them? That's OK then. It's fine to be an imperialist, as long as you announce it up-front. I can't stand those imperialists who are in denial. They need therapy, you know, a bit of time on the couch to bring out their inner coloniser.

We don't need another $200 billion war to get rid of one, you know, strong-arm dictator

Chavez being one of those fiendish democratically-elected dictators. Don't you just hate those tyrants who think they have a right to rule just because the people voted them into office? They're the worst.

It's a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with.

Yeah, that'll get it over with. Can't imagine the millions of Venezualans who voted for Chavez holding his murder against the US.

Mr Robertson's murderous ramblings are the product of a deeply sick mind. But every country has its nutters, I'm just gald that Robertson has no influence with the people who run the US. Oh, wait...
13,565 views 31 replies
Reply #26 Top
You can't kill hundreds of thousands of people and get away with it. What you do is pass laws making sure they live in fear of opposing you, and oust all the judges who might sympathize with them. You make sure that foriegn election monitors are frightened enough with being thrown in prison that they won't interfere. Then you trade your buddy Cuba lots of oil for "intelligence" training.

Chavez is a loathsome character, and since you choose to ignore his own policies, I assume you don't want to discuss them. I wrote my own article on it. 'nuff said.
Reply #27 Top
Baker,

I raised two issues in my last comment:

1. Your use of the phrase "have to" was grossly inaccurate.
2. You lambast Chavez for some of the regimes he supports but you will not do the same to Bush.

You have not admitted that, on point one, you were grossly inaccurate in your choice of language. You have not addressed point two. Who's the one doing the ignoring around here?

I see on your thread that you're pining for my opinion. What can I say? I'm touched. But, just to clarify, I very rarely comment on other people's blogs these days unless the blogger is known to me personally. This has been the case for some time.
Reply #28 Top

There's a huge difference between how the parties respond to "one of their own" going bizarro on 'em. The right denounces these kooks, loudly and immediately, the left gives them a paid position on the DNC and promotes their agenda any way they can.

Yea, and I blogged on that one!

OG, I commend you for lambasting Robertson.  And your article only had one slam against Bush (unproven), so I took it as a good article and commented here.  I haev no use for Chavez, but I agree that keeping him in the spotlight is couner productive.  Like the other thugs in the past, having an outside enemy, real or perceived, will allow him to ignore the problems at home and rally the populace until he has assumed dictatorial powers.

Reply #29 Top
No, I do not admit it, and I think you are crass for even doubting it. You of all people could sit and deride people who flee political oppression? You feel free to tell people threatened with prison that they didn't 'have to' leave. How asinine.

The people in question fled because they believed their lives were threatened. You don't have any right to doubt them, especially since the laws he himself pushed through are there in black and white. Such opposition to Chavez is a crime there now. You may think getting thrown in prison for political expression is something people can happily live with, but I think many would make that a 'have to' for leaving.

I don't doubt you'll avoid my article on Chavez. The truth hurts. The idea that you and others would embrace such a pig says a lot more about you than Chavez. I wasn't pining for you, I was laughing at your ilk, frankly. You go on ignorantly blathering about made-up CIA plots and holier-than-thou politics, when your poster child donated money to the Taliban and tosses people who insult them in prison.

If you want to sit on your blog and hold court, fine, but I don't see much point in visiting. Evidently you are only interested in your own point of view.
Reply #30 Top
Baker, once again, here's what you wrote:

"People who differ with him have to flee"

This is not a specific claim about Person X having to leave the country, it's a sweeping generalisation.

"You feel free to tell people threatened with prison that they didn't 'have to' leave."

I did nothing of the sort, you're jumping between the general and the specific all over the place. I haven't used the word "prison" in this thread.

I'm still waiting for your opinion on the shady company Bush keeps. But then again, seeing as you "don't see much point in visiting" my blog, I suppose I'll never find out.