Pat Robinson is a terrorist.

[necroshine]

Pat Robinson is a terrorist.

What is the difference in this ass hole asking for the killing of people and bin laden
Asking for the death of Americans?
If anything happens to the man that this terrorist singled out, he should be held responsible and should be given the same fate that we would give any terrorist. But I know with him being a Christian that the same standards will not be upheld.

This is much like the people who still follow jimmy swagard, but would not forgive their husbands for having sex with a hooker but yet are more than happy to forgive a preacher for having sex with one.

If he is not taken down, I feel like he, along with so many other preachers that agree with pat would be Americas version of Bin Laden.

i know what i'm saying is harsh but nowhere as harsh as what pat said.

[vertigo]

He is asking for the killing of a specific person, Chavez. Terrorism is targeting civilians. It's not the same thing.

Would you mind if he said "we should do something to stop Chavez"?

He should be held responsible and should be given the same fate that we would give any terrorist.

Saying "we should assassinate him" is saying "there is a preponderance of reasons why we should assassinate him". He is saying that assassination is a valid response to a 'dangerous threat'.

That's not much more harsh than saying 'we should attack Iraq because Saddam Husein is a dangerous threat, in that he likely has/will have WMD's now/in the near future". Should we treat anyone who called for the Iraq war in the same way?

His statements are not treasonous, and I don't know that it can be called hate speech. It's on grounds of Chavez being a threat. It's a touchy issue, and no doubt I will get shouted at now.

If he is wrong, it is for speaking out that assassination is a valid response to threats. If assassinations were moral in certain cases, it would be very difficult to convince people of. Also, one would have a hard time convincing others that they shouldn't use it. It would always be the "you used it, why can't we?" defense.

You can't trust people with such a dangerous implement. I don't propose that I know precisely when to use it. But if somebody had a bomb powerful enough to blow up the whole earth and wipe out humanity, and they were threatening to detonate the bomb, I imagine people would be willing to assassinate them.

[necroshine]

Oh damn. I forgot. Its ok for a Christian to ask for the death of one man, but not a country.
How about if he asked to kill 10 people? Is that ok? I fail to see a difference.
If pat is going to clam to be “a man of god” then why is he asking for more seats to become open on the supreme court? (which you have to die or get so sick your going to die for you to get off the court) that is asking god to kill someone. So this is NOT the first time he has asked for the death of someone.

Now I know it is not the same thing all around with the comparison of him with bin laden. But both clam to follow god and want people to die because of it. the only difference is the number of people they want to die.

Now I will say this, I don’t want bin laden or pat to die. I just want the idea of religion to go away. Then the people like this will not be as much of a threat. At least not like hey are now.

[necroshine]

Should we treat anyone who called for the Iraq war in the same way?

Bush should be held responsible for lying to the American people. W.m.d.’s my asshole.
You can not blame the public for getting behind an idea when every action was taken to get the war off the ground. He lied and should answer for it. I hope you feel the same way.

[vertigo]

Unfortunately, religion is cultic (us and them mentality). Whenever you have an 'us and them' mentality, people want to change society for the better, to suit them. Christians want no nudity on TV, etc.

What people don't realise is it is inevitable. It is part and parcel of religion. People say 'it doesn't matter what you believe' but it does. You can judge people by what they believe, you don't need to respect fundies, in fact you shouldn't. Tolerance is all you need to give.

[vertigo]

He lied and should answer for it. I hope you feel the same way.

Didn't his intelligence say there was a WMD threat?

[vertigo]

How about if he asked to kill 10 people? Is that ok?

Not if it's hate speech. If it is 'it is warranted given the fact that they are a threat to our national security' it might be okay. If it is 'they are Jew scumbags', it isn't.

Of course I don't think anybody can claim to have good reason to assassinate 10 people. Given that, I don't think it would be okay to propose that it is warranted (it would quite plainly be wrong).

[vertigo]

Let me say a final word on this. Any call for the deaths of a class of people is hate speech in my book. Aimed at individuals, like Pat has done, I am more inclined to accept it.

The onus on any such person would be to show they are qualified to make that call. Certainly no priest is.

[Dragon*of*Heaven]

I am no lover of President bush but in all do respect if intelligence stated that wmds existed in Iraq than it was right to take them out. Of course there are better ways than war, but the point is that he wasn't exactly lying. A leader can only act upon the information he/she has. As for Pat Robinson being a terrorist that is a bit on the edge. He made a statement not a threat. Now if it was "We will kill Chavez", or "I will kill Chavez", even as far as "I want Chavez dead" then that would be a different story.