RELIGIOUS Debate on Terroristm-who, why, etc.

[Spock]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

true, but the problem could have been the very fact that even at that place and time it was seen as immoral (not to mention illegal) by the US government... things may have been different if it wasn't

Actually it wasn't illegal at that time. Sanctions weren't forbidden until our great and wise leader Jimmy Carter decided.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

No. I was simply pointing out that the act of assassination is not itself necessarily evil.

I dont think you do yourself any good by trying to explain away his comments Lief. I think it was a stupid and ridiculous display of being a big fat ignorant out of touch right wing lunatic of the highest order. To seriously suggest killling people because we disagree with them politically I mean you have got to be kidding... Talk about setting a bad precedent and talk about the height of IMmorality. Killing Hitler and killing Chavez arent even in the same ball park. We would be killing him because we disagree with his politics. And do we really want to be doing that as americans?

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Spock

Actually it wasn't illegal at that time. Sanctions weren't forbidden until our great and wise leader Jimmy Carter decided.

assassination was not a publically accepted way of dealing with a problem... if it was, we may have been more successful at it

[Spock]

I never said it was 'publically' anything. I said it was legal.

[Lief Erikson]

I agree with Spock; I really think it was legal to assassinate other countries' leaders at that time. Perhaps it was publicly frowned upon, and that's why Bay of Pigs had to be done secretly? But it was at least legal.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

I dont think you do yourself any good by trying to explain away his comments Lief. I think it was a stupid and ridiculous display of being a big fat ignorant out of touch right wing lunatic of the highest order. To seriously suggest killling people because we disagree with them politically I mean you have got to be kidding... Talk about setting a bad precedent and talk about the height of IMmorality. Killing Hitler and killing Chavez arent even in the same ball park.

That is your opinion. Mr. Robertson believes differently about the potential threat Chavez poses. Based upon his different opinion, he made the call for assassination. He has now admitted that his words did amount to a call for assassination, and has apologized.

http://www.patrobertson.com/pressrel...hugochavez.asp

This whole thing was very indiscreet, however. Mr. Robertson is entitled to his own opinion, but saying such a thing with all the world watching was definitely not advisable. It was indiscreet, to say the least.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

We would be killing him because we disagree with his politics. And do we really want to be doing that as americans?

Mr. Robertson would have Chavez killed not because of this, but because in Robertson's opinion, he is a great threat to the United States.

Insidious, because your view of Chavez is different from Robertson's, your view of the morality of such an attack is different. However, I think that if you believed Chavez was "a terrific danger", you would think it was good and right to assassinate him.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Spock

I never said it was 'publically' anything. I said it was legal.

okay, it was legal!

but that is beside the point... it may have failed because it was a method that was never embraced and attempted wholeheartedly... the same can be said about a lot of things concerning iraq pre-invasion

[Spock]

Why can't you accept the fact and stop trying to mitigate and write your own definition of what was, is beyond me. I won't go into it further except to say your conclusion is wrong.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

it may have failed because it was a method that was never embraced and attempted wholeheartedly...

I think that this is at least partially true. We wanted to make it look like other Cubans had done it, and that damaged our chances of success.

Also, as I recall, there was just a lot of miscommunication. Ships not arriving to provide support because of weather . . . a very small number of planes . . . these are just my recollections from studying American history several months ago. I may be making some mistakes. But it sounded from what I read like just a thoroughly messed up operation.

[Spock]

The second part of your recollection refers to the Bay of Pigs invasion and not assasination plots per se.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Spock

Why can't you accept the fact and stop trying to mitigate and write your own definition of what was, is beyond me. I won't go into it further except to say your conclusion is wrong.

because i'm not wrong, of course

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Spock

The second part of your recollection refers to the Bay of Pigs invasion and not assasination plots per se.

Correct.

I thought you and brownjenkins were talking about the Bay of Pigs right now! Was I wrong?

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I thought you and brownjenkins were talking about the Bay of Pigs right now! Was I wrong?

it had something to do with animals... or was it hunting

we were actually talking about assassination as being "okay" in some cases as foreign policy... the cia made so attempts and failed on castro... bay of pigs, on the other hand, was going to be a US-backed invasion of cuba of dissidents pushed out of the country and some within... basically we "backed out"... ultimately a good thing in my opinion

in the end castro proved to be a much smaller threat than any projected

[Lief Erikson]

He was definitely a massive threat for a little while though, when Russia put those nuclear missles into Cuba .

[brownjenkins]

we had missles in turkey at the time also... the russian motivation at the time was to not give us the advantage of being able to hit faster and harder if nuclear war broke out... and advancement in ICBM missle technology over the years to follow made the issue obsolete... it was a danger, but it was (and still is) overhyped by many

[Lief Erikson]

I don't think that the Cuban Missile Crisis was overhyped. However, I have no problem just disagreeing with you on this point. It's not very current .

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

However, I think that if you believed Chavez was "a terrific danger", you would think it was good and right to assassinate him.

However, you would have to be a totally right-wing fascist lunatic to believe that.

Chavez was elected in 1998, and re-elected in 2004. He is pursuing controversial socialist policies like free health care and redistributing oil wealth to the poor to alleviate poverty.

Clearly a terrific danger and needs to be taken out PDQ.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/ame...es/1229345.stm

[Lief Erikson]

I doubt that you've read Robertson's explanation of himself. I posted a link to it. There he did some outlining of the percieved threat, and never did he mention health care .

[Spock]

Even more interesting and ON TOPIC is that the topic is way off subject.

This is more along the lines of the existing thread:

Evidence for Creationism

Please try to post in the proper thread.

[Lief Erikson]

I think I may actually have not posted the link. Here it is: http://www.patrobertson.com/pressrel...hugochavez.asp


This conversation is somewhat related to the topic. I think Insidious brought this up as a kind of counter-attack. "Muslim mullas are calling for violence? Well Christians are too!" I disagreed with Insidious about many of the examples of this point that he brought up, and I think it went from there . . . maybe I'm misinterpreting, but I think that's how all this came up.

"Evidence for Creationism" is largely about scientific debate about a theory. I don't think it relates to Christian ministers at all.

I wonder where we would put this conversation?

[Spock]

You don't think your discussion concerns creation and Chritianity and its beliefs? I beg to differ.
This topic twists and turns, it's just that you two, of late, have veered into the Creationist thread topic and I thought to steer you there.
Of course you're having such a great debate, so just keep on as you have.

P.S. Thanks for putting up the link to P.R.'s comments. Most informative.