To the best of my knowledge, Pat Robertson has not actually sent anyone to Hell.
That's not as important as the idea (probably fact, but I have no access to proof) that Robertson's followers believe he has sent people to Hell... specifically, people they fear, and therefore hate. It's a power they can share through their belief in his rhetoric. It's helpful in recruiting, too.
That manifesto attributed to bin Laden was "preaching to the choir" if I ever heard it -- including the litany of "convert or die" -- which, in case you missed my point in the previous post, has been part of radical Islam since Mohammed's sons took over (and proceeeded to take over 2/3 of the Med, and points East).
It is the cry of the fanatic -- it is also the cry of the fanatic in every religion prone to whip up fanaticism as a political tool (which rules out Buddhism), which is why I referred to the Inquisition and its foreign policy arm, los Conquistadores.
That long historical precedent doesn't make any of it right, or excusable, mind you... in fact, if anything, it should make it less excusable, in that it's been allowed to rage on under various flags and religious symbols for centuries, in full view of people with enough awareness to know better.
But since we're talking about rhetoric...
The post of yours that began this thread alleges to address (and continue) an exchange between you and Robert that began in Flame. I'll rely on your post to provide the links -- no need to repeat them here. Robert was talking about understanding the enemy's position, as opposed to a simple assertion that "The enemy is insane; there's nothing to understand."
Instead of addressing it, you merely reiterated it with your simplistic reduction of bin Laden's manifesto. "The Devil is in the details", Tom... even the devil named bin Laden. Robert noticed that (so did I), and replied here:
That doesn't preclude responding to ObL's litany of complaints with strategic intent. Now that I think about it, the United States has never directly responded to ObL's formal manifesto; we've never denied the charges. That could be seen as tacit agreement in some quarters, but more importantly, it suggests that we don't have a good answer, which highlights a weakness in our rhetorical arsenal (never forget that this war is being fought on many levels). It hampers our effort to take the moral high ground and win hearts and minds, etc.
[emphasis added]
You haven't rebutted.
But since we're talking about rhetoric...
"If we give in to fear, the terrorists win." Recognize it? So who wins, if (as you seem to assert in your initial post in this thread) fear is the reason for the war? I ask you... if (as our leaders allege) we are making it less possible for such an attack ever to again occur, why insist that we remain terrified?
Or: ask the Northern Irish, or the Israelis and Palestinians, what the worth is of fighting fanaticism with fanaticism, and what hope of winning.
To win the war against binLaden's fanatical rhetoric we must respond with our own words: non-fanatical, convincing words of reason about why democracy and capitalism are better than shari'a, tribal feudalism and baksheesh. Not by shouting down, but by tangible example. It used to be called "the art of gentle persuasion". To do that, as Robert has already said, we must comprehend the claims made against us, in order to refute them point by point. Have we done that?
To bring it back around to Robertson and his ilk... There's a preacher in the White House right now (among other places, including HabZone) and they only know one way to convert: screaming imprecations and threatening eternal damnation. In other words, preying upon fear. How different is that from "convert or die"?