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.

 

Here’s how far-right Christians incited stochastic terrorism at a Colorado Springs PP

page: 7
26
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 08:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: NthOther

You mean like the guy who shot people at the Community College in Oregon? But of course, everyone likes to deny he was motivated by anti-Christian sentiment.



I wondered about that too. I've come to the conclusion that liberals are so tied up in one agenda that they forget about the others. They're too one dimensional for their own good. Perfect example, within two hours of the shooting at Umpqua Community College, the president was saying that it should be politicized and that something should be done about more gun control. The shooter there was killing people execution style if they said they believed in God. Not a single word about his anti-religious sentiment.

Less than two hours after the Planned Parenthood shooting, the left was pointing their fingers at the right and screaming "right-wing Conservative Christian terrorist did it because he was listening to too much right-wing rhetoric hate speech talk radio and right-wing media!"

Not a single word about guns or (anti-)religion when it doesn't fit their narrative. It's nearly unbelievable, their level of wide open and blatant hypocrisy.
edit on 2-12-2015 by LSU0408 because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 08:55 AM
link   



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 09:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: LSU0408

What are you talking about?

Obama calls for greater gun control after Colorado shooting


I'm talking about obama politicizing gun control within two hours of the Oregon shooting, and the left (meaning you and others like you on ATS and liberal entertainment news) being too focused on what the killer MIGHT be, to worry about screaming for gun control. No problem with the anti-religious sentiment of the OR shooter either because you knew he couldn't be a right-wing Conservative Christian if he was killing those that believed. Thanks for the link to obama calling for gun control over the CO shooting though, but I only mentioned him in the OR shooting.



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 09:07 AM
link   
It appears to me that a pattern of logical disconnect may be emerging in this thread.

What I mean by this is the apparent assumption being made that extremist rhetoric, from let's just say the left in this example, would only potentially ignite action from the, again in this example, left.

incendiary rhetoric from either "side" most definitely has the potential to affect actors on either or even both sides, depending on how the rhetoric is processed and reacted to.
edit on 12/2/2015 by ~Lucidity because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 09:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: onthedownlow
a reply to: buster2010

In not dodging anything. You might want to familiarize your self with what Jesus said.

Jesus said the laws of Moses was to be followed as well as what taught so that includes the old testament.
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. (NIV, Matthew 5:17–18)
You may want to familiarize yourself with what he said before suggesting it to others.



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 09:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: IAMTAT
I guess all of the BLM rhetoric about how bad cops are, is also directly responsible for every cop who has been murdered recently.


Can you link the death of any police officer to the actions or propaganda from BLM?


You can't be serious, lol... That's like asking if 1+1=2.

"What do we want? Dead cops! When do we want them? Now!"
"Pigs in a blanket, fry 'em like bacon"

Those two are widely chanted during BLM protests. Those are called "anti-police chants" at anti-police demonstrations. Any death to a cop can be linked to that, and can be linked 1,000 times easier than any Conservative or Christian label can be linked to Robert Dear.



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 09:15 AM
link   
a reply to: LSU0408


Not a single word about guns or (anti-)religion when it doesn't fit their narrative. It's nearly unbelievable, their level of wide open and blatant hypocrisy.


But the Left IS caring about guns with this issue too. You were wrong regardless about you only mentioning Obama in the OR shooting.



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 09:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: FriedBabelBroccoli

originally posted by: aethertek
a reply to: FriedBabelBroccoli

Again your attempt at diversion sucks!

Pointing out the declared beliefs of these reich wing nuts is not the same as repetitively demonizing a group as evil.

Acknowledging the fact that there is an entrenched group within American society bent on theocratic domination does not equal calling the murder of doctors as doing gods work.

Stop with your pathetic attempts of equivalence between the rhetoric.
You don't see people of the "left" calling for the justified killing of priests for preaching fear & ignorance like you do from those on the "right" doing just that when it come to oh say "abortion providers, gays, godless secular humanists" & all the other ignorant crap these religulous reich wing morans(sic) spout.

K~


You are insinuating that I align with Nazi's?

You are engaging in the exact pattern of behaviour she describes.

//edit
Dehumanize and align the "opponent" with the morally offensive.

Do not directly call for violence.

Sit back and say you are not responsible.

Yep, checks out
//edit

Maybe you ought to read the article and examine your own use of language and behaviour?

-FBB


You should know by now that if you're not a hard left nut job anti-religious liberal progressive, you're aligned with Nazis and the KKK.



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 09:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
a reply to: introvert

Bet you get the FoxNews edited version as the answer.


So who was promoting "Kill a cop?"


Yeah man, that darn Fox News... The did some damn good editing too, they even have C-SPAN in place of their logo. Nice job finding a YouTube video of a YouTube video that showed C-SPAN's edited version of the protests. All I can do it chuckle and shake my head.



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 09:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: aethertek
a reply to: FriedBabelBroccoli




You are insinuating that I align with Nazi's?


No I'm implying that the rhetoric that the "right" uses is not dissimilar to that of the Nazi's.
Care to actually address my points or is the nazi thing gonna be your latest sucky diversion?
K~


Do you even have anything to back up your own rhetoric about the right?



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 09:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: Indigent
a reply to: Sublimecraft

So what is the fix, limit free speech, ban the media or prevent the formation of mentally inferior folks by proper education?


This never comes up when it's BLM calling for dead cops in their anti-police demonstrations or ISIS openly recruiting lone wolves to kill for them. No, never. The first time most of us hear this term is when the left decide to paint a killer with a right-wing Conservative Christian label. We don't hear about this when it's actually true, proven, and in the open.

Edit: We'll be dealing with a whole lot of these lies and false brandings now with elections less than a year away. Liberals are far too predictable and this is their childish, trashy, middle school drama queen way of cutting out all the corners and going straight for the propaganda and lie to make us look bad. There's not even any proof this guy was a Conservative and look how they've made the kool aid drinkers believe them without a single request for proof.
edit on 2-12-2015 by LSU0408 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 09:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: LSU0408

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
a reply to: introvert

Bet you get the FoxNews edited version as the answer.

So who was promoting "Kill a cop?"


Yeah man, that darn Fox News... The did some damn good editing too, they even have C-SPAN in place of their logo. Nice job finding a YouTube video of a YouTube video that showed C-SPAN's edited version of the protests. All I can do it chuckle and shake my head.


The CSPAN was the unedited version. Slow your roll.



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 09:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: ~Lucidity

originally posted by: LSU0408

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
a reply to: introvert

Bet you get the FoxNews edited version as the answer.

So who was promoting "Kill a cop?"


Yeah man, that darn Fox News... The did some damn good editing too, they even have C-SPAN in place of their logo. Nice job finding a YouTube video of a YouTube video that showed C-SPAN's edited version of the protests. All I can do it chuckle and shake my head.


The CSPAN was the unedited version. Slow your roll.


Soooo, where exactly did Fox News fit into the picture?



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 09:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
It appears to me that a pattern of logical disconnect may be emerging in this thread.

What I mean by this is the apparent assumption being made that extremist rhetoric, from let's just say the left in this example, would only potentially ignite action from the, again in this example, left.

incendiary rhetoric from either "side" most definitely has the potential to affect actors on either or even both sides, depending on how the rhetoric is processed and reacted to.


I agree with you. Regarding the effect of rhetoric or stochastic terrorism, I think the narrative fuels both sides at the same time. Meaning, the more polarized we become, the more right v wrong the narrative is, leaves little room for moderation or the middle. Humans can be irrational and I have a hard time codifying causality into a model or definition such as stochastic terror, but without a doubt I think the polarization of opinion in this age of instant / social media can be an instigator or amplifier of extremes.

It breeds hypocrisy and hard lines for both sides. As a libertarian I deal with this in any political conversation I have with friends on the left and right, I'm like - if y'all spent less time hating the other side, maybe we could actually use some logic and rationality to find some solutions. The media and politicians however, get more attention and ratings as a result of this polarization, so they continue to feed us this narrative of opposition.



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 09:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: NthOther
Could persistence in insinuating there is an extremist Christian movement afoot be, in itself, considered "stochastic terrorism"?

I mean, what if all this rhetoric incites violence against Christians? We know the Atheists are prone to dim wits and short tempers. What if one of them went nuts one day and decided to go Rambo on the fundies?

You know, for America and everything. Because Christian terrorism is a much greater threat than other kinds.

At least, that's what "they" are saying. Gotta defend the homeland, you know?



when I see the statistics about atheists firebombing over 150 churches (amount of PP buildings firebombed by pro-life)....shooting to death 8 pastors (PP doctors murdered by pro-life)....then, you can talk about violence against American Christians...and last but not least, this is all because of what a mythical being told people 2000 years ago....



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 09:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: ~Lucidity

Stochastic terrorism is not a fringe concept. It is a known terrorist modality that has been described at length by analysts. It produces terrorism patterns that are known to any member of Congress or any presidential candidate who has ever thought deeply about national or domestic security issues .


Interesting. Obviously, the motive for stochastic terrorism is key.

I don't see what republicans stood to gain by inciting this act.

I do see a myriad of ways that democrats have gained from it though.

Therefore, I cannot help but wonder again about how those Planned Parenthood videos came to be. I admit I wondered about them from the get-go and figured they had a few hidden purposes.

I don't think motive points to republicans.

edit on 2-12-2015 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 09:50 AM
link   
a reply to: buster2010

You haven't read the 10 Commandments?



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 09:51 AM
link   
maybe these "hardline Christians" are becoming the American Christian version of an Islamic caliphate....everything I've seen from these people suggest that is happening.



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 09:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: LSU0408

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: IAMTAT
I guess all of the BLM rhetoric about how bad cops are, is also directly responsible for every cop who has been murdered recently.


Can you link the death of any police officer to the actions or propaganda from BLM?


You can't be serious, lol... That's like asking if 1+1=2.

"What do we want? Dead cops! When do we want them? Now!"
"Pigs in a blanket, fry 'em like bacon"

Those two are widely chanted during BLM protests. Those are called "anti-police chants" at anti-police demonstrations. Any death to a cop can be linked to that, and can be linked 1,000 times easier than any Conservative or Christian label can be linked to Robert Dear.


Quoted for the fact that it makes the point perfectly.



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 09:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: aethertek
Something current...
“Violence is never the answer, but we must start pointing out who is the real culprit. The true instigator of this violence and all violence at any Planned Parenthood facility is Planned Parenthood themselves. Violence begets violence. So Planned Parenthood: YOU STOP THE VIOLENCE INSIDE YOUR WALLS.”
www.rawstory.com...

See PP brought the violence on themselves because they're violent evil doers.
Never mind the fact that PP is actually medical practitioners providing health care to millions of American woman.
No no they're violent instigators.

You see how she desperately tries to compare the victim(PP) to the real perpetrator of violence the shooter.
She condones his actions because PP brought it on themselves so they're responsible, after all "violence begets violence".

FOR THOSE STILL CONFUSED WHAT SHE SAID IS STOCHASTIC TERRORISM

K~


Which still doesn't prove one way or another that the killer was anything more than a crazy maniacal nut job.



new topics

top topics



 
26
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join