It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Christian Fundamentalist Terrorists To Target Mecca

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 4 2005 @ 11:50 AM
link   
When I say fundamentalist i don't mean one who interprets the bible literally etc.. I am a christian myself. I am talking about white southern american pro-confederate muslim haters, who happen to be christian.

And to the comment about Christians not allowed to worship in Saudi Arabia...

Being prevented from worshipping is not going to stop a terrorist attack. If the 9/11 hijackers were not allowed to worship in a mosque in the U.S. before the attacks, they would have gone through with their plans anyway.




posted on Jan, 4 2005 @ 11:51 AM
link   
Ok, how about non-religious intentions, STEALING the Holy Black Stone, I bet you could sell it back to the saoudi prince for 3 BILLION dollars, that is, if you manage to run away from all those angry mobs with torches and semi-circular swords



[edit on 4-1-2005 by Countermeasures]



posted on Jan, 4 2005 @ 11:57 AM
link   
"White southern american pro-confederate muslim haters" do not behave like Christians, producing the FRUIT of the Spirit.

Let's not label them as "Christians." They give that Covenant a bad name.

Let's see: How about "Christian Partisans" ?? They associate with Christianity, but they are fighters, not doers of the Word.

Howzzat?



posted on Jan, 4 2005 @ 01:11 PM
link   
lol Christians would never use terrorism. Lol ever looked at northern ireland? the crusades? The 30 year war? World War 1?
Serbs are Christians too. Remember the Balkans?

You will not see a christian AQ soon because christians practically rule this planet and are not actually opressed.If you leave out some 3rd World Countries.



posted on Jan, 4 2005 @ 01:27 PM
link   
It appears to me that the supremacy of hypocritical Christian values --namely, the teachings of the Apostle Paul which directly contradict the Christ --

is over. Nobody's buying into that--who has any handle on reality--anymore.

Simple faith in this paradigm (Paul's) translates as

Faith = gullibility and blindness to actual effects-in-time;

Hope = complacency and the expectation of ease; and

Love = Intolerance for Diversity [preaching-gone-berserk]

Now, preaching "Jesus" is still effective because He SACRIFICED everything; and He told His followers that they would have to sacrifice everything, if they wanted to follow Him and follow the Truth.

A few do. Damn few. And they truly get ragged on.

So Christian-dumb's days are numbered; and only the remnant who are faithful to Jesus behavioral teachings will persist and endure from this point on.

I expect, after all the Natural Disasters settle down and the NWO (what's left of Power Individuals) asserts itself, Christianity will be at the top of their list of dissidents to suppress--of course.

Jesus said we are free of all social obligations by the Grace of God.

There is NO World Order that is going to swallow that down. Won't happen.

I see another thousand years of confrontation and struggle between those who want TOP-DOWN controls and those who want to find the way of Godly devotion and obedience, one-on-one with God.

What doesn't kill you makes you stronger, I hear.



posted on Jan, 4 2005 @ 07:07 PM
link   
I'd feel better if one used the term "Christian" extremist, just like that, quotes included.


BTW it's not a sin to defend your family. I'm pro-Second Amendment. Even in Exodus it states that if a burglar is killed by the homeowner he's trying to rob, them's the breaks. The homeowner doesn't get punished.

It is a sin to forceably convert people. I can tell you all about Jesus, but if you don't want to hear it, I'm wasting everyone's time. Just a "no thank you" will suffice.

Kinda burns my rear end, though, how Dubya's going around saying he's Christian. According to my mother, the Amish think he's God's mouthpiece or something!
I live near Amish country myself. I think someone needs to tell them that Bush is a wolf in sheep's clothing and that if they want a Christian candidate, they should vote Constitution Party.



posted on Jan, 5 2005 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by RedPhoenixDelta
When I say fundamentalist i don't mean one who interprets the bible literally etc.. I am a christian myself. I am talking about white southern american pro-confederate muslim haters, who happen to be christian.

And to the comment about Christians not allowed to worship in Saudi Arabia...

Being prevented from worshipping is not going to stop a terrorist attack. If the 9/11 hijackers were not allowed to worship in a mosque in the U.S. before the attacks, they would have gone through with their plans anyway.


ahhhh, well, now, that's a different story. but with much the same outcome, i think. in effect, that would be like asking the KKK to attack countries in Africa. you're talking global race war, not christian fundamentalism.


TPL

posted on Jan, 5 2005 @ 02:27 PM
link   
It depends what you mean by the word 'Fundamentalist'.

By it do you mean someone who stays true to his/her holy scriptures in a peaceful way?

Or do you mean someone who believes thier religion tells them to destroy other religons and cultures?



posted on Jan, 5 2005 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by RedPhoenixDelta
When I say fundamentalist i don't mean one who interprets the bible literally etc.. I am a christian myself. I am talking about white southern american pro-confederate muslim haters, who happen to be christian.


I have to address this post. Are white southerners the only people that hate Muslims? Are we the only racists? I AM A WHITE SOUTHERN PRO-CONFEDERATE and I don't attend cross burnings, don't hate blacks, Jews, Muslims, etc:

Do you know that there are more skin-heads, KKK members, Neo-Nazis, etc; ABOVE the mason-Dixie line than below? Or does any of this matter to you as you spew this stereotypical BS?

Believe it or not we are not all married to our cousin laying in the yard drunk on moonshine just waiting for a chance to lynch us a black.

Some of us are old enough to remember the fight to give blacks equal rights and it was fought HERE BY US along with the blacks. Of course there were some ignorant whites that lump an entire group of people together by the deeds of there dumbest ones (sound familiar?) but there were also those of us who fought FOR the rights of blacks some of these Christians yall bitch about were on the front lines.

I guess you think all blacks are on welfare, all Asians are honor students, all Spanish are illegal aliens, etc; because after, all white southerners are rotten toothed inbred KKK members right?

If your intention was to say the religious freaks in the KKK then fine you should have stated it as such. They Embarrass US a lot more than you, not just because of their actions but the fact that some people aren't smart enough to realize that we ALL aren't like that.


edited to remove some VERY Un-Mod like responses





[edit on 5-1-2005 by Amuk]



posted on Jan, 5 2005 @ 03:42 PM
link   
My 2 cents:

The Christians have not conducted a terrorist attack outside the US, because it would be logistically impossible. To get enough manpower into an overly Muslim country is a feat in itself: Mission Impossible style.

Also: the mentality of Western nations is much different from that of the rest of the world. Violence is abhorred, but flourishes. An act of violence by a Christian Fundalmentalist( aka abortion doctor killing) is looked down upon, whereas an act of violence by Hamas or Islamic Jihad is greeted warmly by the Islamic World. No Christian country would allow stonings, female genital mutilation, and public beheadings. No Western Nation would sentence someone to death for being Jewish (aka Kuwait).

Don't give me the ' poor Muslims, who have suffered so much and have been exploited excuse'. Islam is the most violent of the 3 major religions. That's just a fact. The example of the IRA in Ireland as Christian violence was off-center: The IRA is actually trying to get the English out of Ireland, who happen to be Protestant. They are night fighting specifically because the English(and Northern Irish) are Protestant. On the other hand; Hamas and Islamic Jihad, though fighting for Palestine and Lebanese homelands, do not say such. The kill Zionist and American pig mentality is what they want the world to see.

After a terrorist attack committed by an Islamic 'insurgent' or 'martyr', there is no public outcry denouncing the action. You may get a few Muslim clerics who denounce the attack, but that's it. If one cleric shouts out against the attack, the media makes it sound as if the whole of Islam denounces the attack. Two days later, he is forgotten. After America entered Iraq, Western peace groups were forming 'human chains' to stop tanks. They do the same in Israel and Palestine. Doctors Without Borders is in all these areas helping the disenfranchised and wounded.

Where are all the Muslim charities helping the 'poor' Christians in Latin America? Saudi Arabia is sure wealthy enough to send over a few tons of food and clothing. So is The U.A.E, and Bahrain.



posted on Jan, 5 2005 @ 03:48 PM
link   

edited to remove some VERY Un-Mod like responses


Actually, your whole post is very un-mod like. Number 1, you are targetting me and making me out as ignorant. Number 2, your post is out in left field totally away from the topic. Number 3, there are white southern pro-confederate muslim haters who happen to be christian, but I didn't even come close to saying that all white southern pro-confederates hate muslims. Do your homework son.



posted on Jan, 5 2005 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by RedPhoenixDelta
Number 3, there are white southern pro-confederate Muslim haters who happen to be Christian, but I didn't even come close to saying that all white southern pro-confederates hate Muslims.


There are also black Northerner pro-wal-mart Muslims haters who happen to be Christians but you didn't single them out did you? Or does the hatred only count when its ignorant white southerners?

Why do you single out WHITE SOUTHERNERS? Are there NO OTHERS IN AMERICA that hate Muslims, or is it only us?

I didn't call you ignorant but the labeling of an entire group of americans implies it. Again IF you are just talking about KKK members and skinheads then say so why paint an entire section of America with stereotypical BS "son"

As for being off topic I would be happy to take it to U2U. I am just sick and tired of seeing Southerners portrayed as sheet wearing inbred slobbering lynch mobs and statements like yours does nothing to help. We have worked for years to rid ourselves of this image, which was never true for 99.999% of us anyway.

As I said I would be happy to take it to U2U if you wish the image you are attempting to perpetrate is a myth and I would be happy to discuss it off thread



[edit on 5-1-2005 by Amuk]



posted on Jan, 5 2005 @ 04:01 PM
link   
Has not this topic wandered off into a debate around semantics ?

I have no idea what the original posting intended by the term 'fundamentalist', but I had kinda guessed it was being used in the same as the media refers to Islamic 'fundamentalists'.

A sort of catch all to describe a group who claim to operate under a given faith, and act in ways that have a, shall we say, revised, understanding of that faith.

The 'fundamentalist' part of the description being the 'bit' that defines the acts, not [necessarily] the Christian, Islamic, Jewish or other 'faith' bit of the term: as distinct to a direct reference to one specific Christian specific belief/church/cult who refer to themselves as fundamentalist. (The word 'cult' used here, is entirely non-pejorative, and is to be given it's 'proper', albeit theological definition - I simply don't know how Christian groups refer to themselves, would sects have been more appropriate collective noun maybe ?).

Anyway - all that aside - is this not at it's heart, still a perfectly valid question ?

Why have we not [yet] seen a contemporary reactionary backlash against [insert given target here] by groups who claim to be following a hard-line Christian interpretation - [perhaps for the installation of a Christian theocracy: hmm, like the NWO ... ], and on the basis of that [subjective] interpretation alone (or predominately on that interpretation) ?

I tend to think that groups quoted elsewhere in this post invariably had other objectives too (often political, but maybe not theocracies as political institutions, more, err, conventional politics).

One example could have been the Christian response to the attacks on churches in Iraq maybe, or 'proportional responses' to the taking and dispatching of hostages ?

Is there not sufficient room in an interpretation of the gospel to 'allow' such acts (I know it's frequently misinterpreted, but 'eye-for-an-eye' comes to mind as an example) ?

Is it simply perceived (by those with the potential to hold such views) that this is what 'western' (mainly, and broadly 'Christian') governments do anyway, thereby alleviating the need for such groups to exist ?

[Edit for 'mark-up' it just looked wrong]

[edit on 5-1-2005 by 0951]



posted on Jan, 5 2005 @ 04:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by 0951Is there not sufficient room in an interpretation of the gospel to 'allow' such acts (I know it's frequently misinterpreted, but 'eye-for-an-eye' comes to mind as an example) ?


23. If there shall be a fatality, then you shall award a life for a life.
"24. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a hand for a hand, a foot for a foot;
“25. A burn for a burn, a wound for a wound, a bruise for a bruise.

its clear to most christians that this applies to non-innocent people, it doesnt permit responding to terrorism, hostage taking etc with the same thing, common sense really.



posted on Jan, 5 2005 @ 05:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amethyst
Newsflash: NO Christian fundamentalist is EVER a terrorist!

Please stop misrepresenting Bible Christianity. A Christian fundamentalist (such as myself) has the Bible as his/her authority. And that Bible does not condone terrorism.

Please know what you're talking about before you slam Christians, okay?


WRONG!! Timothy McVey (sorry if I misspelled) was most definately a terrorist. A white, american, Christian terrorist at that. He may not have represented the ideals of Christianity, but was most definately a terrorist........or does he not count?



posted on Jan, 5 2005 @ 06:13 PM
link   
Glad you said it, Amuk. I probably would have been much harsher so you have saved me some warnings. Rarely have I seen bigotry, stereotyping and ignorance used in such an ironic way to accuse others of the same as in this thread. Wow.

Now, I'm certainly not a christian and don't put any creedence in their belief system, but actions speak louder than words, folks. I don't see the christians blowing people up on a daily basis. Most christians live in the civilized core nations of the world (or close to them) and have gotten beyond that sort of thinking.

Look around the globe today. Look where there is sustained suffering, unrest, and war. Look in Thomas Barnett's Non-Intergrating Gap. What religion do you see there refusing to adapt. As much as I dislike em, it ain't the Christians.

Heh.... Mecca. How can a piece of rock be "Holy" anyway? Actually, that big cube may well be a good symbol for Islam. It's dark, unyielding, unchanging, and probably very, very heavy.



posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 03:04 AM
link   
Amuk,



but the labeling of an entire group of americans implies it


Talking about a white, southern pro-confederate muslim hater with intentions to blow up mosques does not at all single out white southern pro-confederates, white southerners, or whites.

Shame on you!



posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 10:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by RedPhoenixDelta
Talking about a white, southern pro-confederate muslim hater with intentions to blow up mosques does not at all single out white southern pro-confederates, white southerners, or whites.


So you are OK with the Black Northerner Pro-Wal-Mart Muslim haters that want to blow up the Mosques?

How about the Brown Eastern Pro-Daughters of the Revolution Muslim Haters that want to blow up mosques?

How about Bigots-that-think-all-southerners-run-around-in-white-robes looking-to-lynch-people-that-talk-funny-and-are-darker-than-them-that-want-to-blow-up-mosques?

Or is it just us that is the problem


Your Prejudice is obvious and made even more funny by the fact that you are point the fingers at US for the same thing?

Why didnt you say the KKK? Even after given several chances to do so? Maybe because THEY werent the target?



posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by namehere
its clear to most christians that this applies to non-innocent people, it doesnt permit responding to terrorism, hostage taking etc with the same thing, common sense really.


Ah, but that was exactly my point - non-innocents as defined by whom ?

I'm not sure that the rational moral standards you are suggesting as 'common sense' can necessarily be applied to those who have the potential to undertake, what most people would regard as the actions of a 'fanatic' or a 'fundamentalist' (used here in it's current, and somewhat 'lazy' way)', howsoever that groups own perception of that is subjectively, or I guess [by it's nature], objectively applied.

Although I'm not a Christian, I do at least understand that the passage you quoted is nothing more than a mandate to undertake a proportional response, (as much by the semantics of it as anything) and not a licence to go any further than that (hence the "frequently misinterpreted" preface to it's reference in my earlier post).

My question was around the existence (or otherwise) of any opportunities for alternative interpretations of Christian teaching that allow for, or even justify such actions taking place by those who call themselves 'Christian' (be that rightly or wrongly in the eyes of 'others' of that faith, or indeed of other faiths).

Your post indicates that you don't believe that there is (at least not in that passage) and that's fine (no, really it is :up
- others may however, disagree of course ... (including those disposed towards such acts).

This principle could also be used as another tool to incite hatred and violence, I may commit an act of outrage, and wishing to add to the overall entropy, I simply 'claim' that I represent one faith or another, and the escalation steps up one more notch as those who I have outraged seek revenge against those I claim to be derived from.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join