Which part of 'thou shalt not kill' is so unclear?

So in his usual ‘ignore everything jesus ever said and 2000 years of church tradition’ kind of way, American TV-evangelist and uber-wanker Pat Robertson has called for the US Government to Assassinate Hugo Chavez, president of Venezuela.

So, the war on terror, eh, George? Now one of your ‘boys’, your ‘bottom line’ is calling for extra-judicial killings of national leaders. Time to have Pat thrown into camp X-Ray? How about a few weeks in Abu Graib? I mean, it’s not like it’s just suspicion that he’s inciting millions of his highly guillible viewers to support murder in the name of God and country. My, what startling respect he has for the rule of law, for due process…

Robertson’s a dick, we all know that – he’s been spouting rubbish for 20 years. After the Sept 11th attacks, he and his fellow moron, Jerry Falwell blamed it on pagans, abortionists, feminists & gays and lesbians, so it’s pretty clear where he’s coming from – but this seems to be on a whole other level, in that it’s clear incitement to murder.

The crazy thing is that the US has a history of doing this kind of shit in central and southern America – they supported the military coup in Chile in ’73, and from then on, backed any bunch of right-wing murdering psychos operating in the Americas, if only they were against a ‘leftist’ government, including the Contras in Nicaragua (for more on this, read ‘Like Water on Stone – the story of Amnesty International’).

So when Rumsfeld told reporters “Certainly it’s against the law. Our department doesn’t do that type of thing,” he should, as Cary pointed out on TimeBeing (email discussion list thingie – if you’re not on it, you don’t need to know) ‘Even giving Donald the benefit of the doubt, shouldn’t there have been an, “anymore” tacked on the end of that quote?’

It’s all just another example of the stunning duplicity of the US government when it comes to what constitutes terrorism, or war-crimes, or justification for invasion. One rule for all, my arse. What’s most shocking is that the rest of the world’s national leaders will fail once again to stand up to the US, to put pressure on them to condemn in any sensible terms the words of one of dubya’s closest allies. A former presidential candidate, FFS!

The latest development is that Robertson has claimed his comments were misconstrued – OK, which bit of “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.” is unclear?

He’s calling for state terrorism to be enacted on the leader of a nation, and should be tried under America’s new draconian anti-terrorism laws. You can bet your arse that if Louis Farakhan has said something similar, they’d be onto him in a second.

Robertson, you’re scum, do the decent thing and hand yourself over to be tried for incitement to terrorism. Go on, just for lil’ ole me. You loser.

© 2008 Steve Lawson and developed by Pretentia. | login