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 Terrorism - Conveniently Forgotten

page: 1
18
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+1 more 
posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 09:46 AM
link   
There's a myth out there that Christian terrorism doesn't exist in modern society. At first, I didn't think it did either. The only kinds of terrorism that seemed to exist were political and Islamic terrorism. But, then I did something so simple that I'm amazed not everyone has done it before they claim Christianity be free from causing bloodshed in the modern day - I wiki'ed "Christian terrorism".

So, now I shall strive to prove to y'all that Islam does not have copyright on having a small fraction of extreme religious nutcakes. I won't go into the history of Christianity, because we all know if I do, Christianity will be just as, if not more, bloodstained as Islam - y'all know it already; the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Witch Hunts, and so on, and so forth. So, this shall be "modern day" only, that is, the 20th and 21st Centuries.

There won't be any fancy pictures. There'll be a few fancy quotes. But all in all, this is just a flashy collection of links for you to read at your leisure. Be warned of that, and blame my laziness for not making it more fancy.

So, without further ado, let's get started! Buckle down, Dorothy, 'cuz the Middle East is going bye-bye!


First up are the Canadian Freedomites. They're on my list of Christian terrorist groups because a small fraction of them have engaged in campaigns of arson and bombings. I quote from Wikipedia:



A very small minority of the Freedomites were noted for their arson campaigns, as a sign of their protest against materialistic life. They targeted belongings and other material possessions. The attacks occurred throughout the 20th century, but the periods of greatest activity was during the 1920s and 1960s. Both arson and bombing were used. Targets included the property of themselves and other Doukhbors to further exhibit their dislike of materialism, attacks on schools to resist government pressure to school Svobodnik children, and attacks on transportation and communications. One such incident was the bombing of a railway bridge in Nelson, British Columbia in 1961. Most of these acts were committed in the nude.


Source


Neeeext!

Next up is The National Liberation Front of Tripura, from India. These gentlemen have, among other things, kidnaped tribals and forced them to make pornographic movies. Regardless of their particular kink in that area, they are considered a terrorist group by the Indian government, and as such, must be considered - a terrorist group. They claim to want to create a Kingdom of God, Tripura, and secede from India.


And then, we have the Lebanese Christian Phalangists who, in 1982 massacred "from 7-800 to 3500" Palestinian and Lebanese civilians, in the Sabra and Shatila massacre during the Lebanese Civil War.


Palestinian and Lebanese civilians were massacred in the camps by Christian Lebanese Phalangists while the camp was surrounded by Israeli forces. In that period of time, Israel was at war with Lebanon. The Israeli Forces occupied Beirut and dominated the refugee camps of Palestinians and controlled the entrance to the city. After the assassination of Bachir Gemayel, leader and president-elect of the Lebanese Phalangist, a Maronite group, also called Lebanese Forces militia group, entered the camp and murdered inhabitants during the night. The exact number of victims is disputed, from 700–800 to 3,500 (depending on the source).


Source


Then, we have one example from the Northern Ireland conflict, the Troubles, namely the Orange Volunteers, a "Protestant fundamentalist paramilitary group":


They are known for attacks on Catholic churches and businesses in Northern Ireland, in an attempt to prevent political settlements with nationalists. One of its first actions was a synchronised attack on 11 Catholic churches, justified by its then-leader, Clifford Peeples, because they were "bastions of the Antichrist". However, Peeples denies being a bigot saying that he despises Roman Catholicism, but individual Catholics he likes and loves. Several pipe bomb attacks were attributed to the OV.


Source


Next up is the Lord's Resistance Army of Uganda.


The group is based in apocalyptic Christianity, but also is influenced by a blend of Mysticism and traditional religion, and claims to be establishing a theocratic state based on the Ten Commandments and Acholi tradition. The LRA is accused of widespread human rights violations, including murder, abduction, mutilation, sexual enslavement of women and children, and forcing children to participate in hostilities.


Source


And last but not least, let's strike at the heart of the United States. I give you something I'm sure you all remember quite well. Hutaree.


From March 28 to March 30, 2010, nine people thought to be Hutaree members were arrested in police raids in Michigan, Ohio, and Indiana (in Hammond), for their alleged involvement in a plot to kill various police officers and possibly civilians using illegal explosives and/or firearms.


Source


I would also like to direct you to a previous, more well written thread on the same subject, with more examples, here on ATS. Christian terrorism


These are just a few examples of Christian terrorism. Now, tell me one thing; Does this seem like a religion of peace to you? Actually, forget I asked. Why? Because I don't particularly see these people as representatives of Christianity. Just as I don't see some hairy, fat-lipped ape with an exhibitionistic fetisch for caves and video tapes, as representative of Islam.

My point with this thread is mainly to show people that retarded extremists from the Middle-East doesn't have a copyright on terrorism in the name of religion. I want to kill the myth that the only religion today that causes bloodbath is Islam. That, and to provoke a bit of good ol' fashioned discussion.

My personal opinion in regard to the whole issue is this. I'm a simple-minded man. I'm also a good natured fool. I have faith in humanity, and I have faith in humans, whether they be Americans, Swedes, or, say, Afghans. Now, I might be a fool for thinking this, but I think muslims are just humans like you and me, who want to get along and be friends, who want to enjoy peace and harmony in life.

And, just like in our cases, they're not allowed to. Because, like us, they're always manipulated into war by fanatical leaders and small groups of extremist tools - pawns - who manage to con an entire nation into believing they are representative of an entire religion.

Let me ask you this as my closing statement.

Do you think that Dick Cheney and his particular fondness for war is representative of the people of America? Or rather, would it be a correct assumption by your random muslim, to say that he was?

That is all. Toodles, y'all!
edit on 19-12-2010 by David_Reale because: To spell "Christian" correctly in the title. I suck. >_>

edit on 19-12-2010 by David_Reale because: (no reason given)


 
Mod Edit: External Source Tags Instructions – Please Review This Link.
edit on 20/12/2010 by ArMaP because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 10:01 AM
link   
Thank god somebodys thinking intellegently! Christianity in all honesty has caused more problems than any other religion, Technically im christian but i dont support many things theve done in the name of god, As a religion weve pushed our weight around till its not welcome anymore.
There are extremists in every religion though And they shouldnt reflect the goodness that exists within religion

edit on 19/12/10 by TedHodgson because: spelling



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 10:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by TedHodgsonThere are extremists in every religion though And they shouldnt reflect the goodness that exists within religion


I couldn't have said it better myself, dude.
People focus so hard on the small fraction of soulless bastards that carry out horrible acts of violence in the name of religion, that the whole religion suddenly takes that shape to them. In essence, they become what they hate, because they're as ignorant as the terrorists they hate so passionately.
edit on 19-12-2010 by David_Reale because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 10:14 AM
link   
F&S.

There are also the xtian nuts that go around attacking abortion clinics and the staff that work there.
They are essentially using terrorism to force their opinion of abortion.



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 10:14 AM
link   
I propose terrorism is just that.

Branding it is silly. Soda can be Coke or Pepsi for example.

English terrorism. American terrorism. The empire's terrorism.

Qualifying it prevents eliminating it because you are now only focused on part of the problem.



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 10:17 AM
link   
reply to post by NonKonphormist
 


You're right, dude. I considered adding them to the list as well, but in the end decided not to because I only wanted the really blood-soaked groups. Though since I added the Canadian group to the list, I guess I should have added them as well. Oh, well. As you say, they fit the definition of a terrorist group, and they're Christian.



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 10:19 AM
link   
I agree. Any organized religion has the potential to get violent by it's very nature. Christianity is no exception. As I posted in another thread:

Organized religion in general promotes behavior that at its best is divisive and at its worst is punitive, judgmental, and often times violent.
--- Divisive because the belief in a specific omnipotent being who punishes/rewards people who worship him causes believers to classify people into those who believe in the "right" thing and those who don't.
--- Punitive, judgmental, and violent when people decide they need to act on the perceived wishes of their omnipotent being to punish those who don't believe in the "right thing".

When people believe their immortal souls are at risk of either great punishment or great reward, they are willing to do all sorts of things - good and evil.



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 10:19 AM
link   
reply to post by zroth
 


I agree, dude. Terrorism is just that - terrorism. While the reasons may vary, the methods are the same.

The only reason I specifically pointed towards Christian terrorism was as a counterweight to the many islamophobic (in my eyes) posts and threads here on ATS, with some very, very bad generalizations. It's not really a strange reaction considering the situation today. Hell, even I was tempted for a few moments when I first heard of the terrorist attempt in Stockholm - but that doesn't make it a good, or the right reaction.



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 10:22 AM
link   
reply to post by peacevic
 


My stance on organized religion is a bit hazy, even to myself. On one hand, I don't believe in the "follow the leader" type of thinking. But on the other hand, there's been some very great leaders in history, too. Martin Luther King, for example.

I think it is necessary to remember that even leaders aren't always right, which means you have to think for yourself, even when listening to them. That's key if you want an organized religion to stay uncorrupted, in my humble opinion.

Edit to add: Of course, there's always the lone nutter that doesn't think for himself. I don't think that organized religion itself is necessarily the source of that, however. If there wasn't organized religion, the retards would still find other reasons to kill innocent people.
edit on 19-12-2010 by David_Reale because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 10:24 AM
link   
Some food for thought. I view the KKK as a Christian terrorist group. Many are Christian fanatics terrorizing non-whites. If I'm not mistaken they use their interpretation of the Bible to "do what they do".



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 10:26 AM
link   
A very good point, dude. I don't know why I left out the KKK. They should, by all accounts, fit the definition of a terrorist group - they use terrorism, after all, to further their agenda.



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 12:26 PM
link   
Re David,

well done. And it's really reason to celebrate, that the whole debate for or against various kinds of extremism settles on extremism per se, instead of the usual singling out of a small amount of extremist opponents, who hide behind "they did it first" or "now see, what you made me do".

But there's one thing, there's a need to be observant about already now: The demagogic escape of extremist responsibility as expressed in "Ideologies don't kill people. People kill people". And then confusing readers by e.g. including science, technology, modern medicin (when it fails) and other REAL, but passive, 'tools' into the group of dangerous human options.

So I would like, prematurely, to disarm such nonsense. A knife is a neutral tool, with the possibility of both positive and negative uses. It does normally not come with a manual of 'to be used for killing', and IF it is used destructively, it certainly is an example of 'people killing people'.

An extremist, invasive ideology is something completely different. It contains an intrinsic message of violence, and if successfully used in social engineering, it will imprint violence in the mindset of adherents or zombis. Ideology is ACTIVE.

There are without doubt many a stalinist, nazist, mao'ist, jihadist or extremist christian, who would have stayed at home from their various crusades, if they had not been brainwashed to manifest invasive ideology.



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 12:40 PM
link   
I believe the doctrine of Christianity (new testament) teaches people to 'love thier enemies' and that all are God's children.

Islam teaches that infidels lives are of no account, they are lower than animals, that the whole world must submit to Islam at the point of the sword.

If you want to kid yourself that these are both the same - thats up to you!



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 


I don't believe any religion is inherently evil. The only evil is people who will use it for their own, ulterior, and quite evil, motives. But that's just my opinion, and we all know opinions are like....well, you get the idea.
I'm not saying I'm right in that assumption, but it's an assumption I'm willing to bet my life on.

However, as you say, there are some people who might not have killed themselves had they not been influenced to do so by religion. Then again, I still think they would have found another reason to kill. I don't think the problem lies with religion, but with them. They are looking for a reason, any reason, to kill. If it's not religious, then it's something else, I'm sure.



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 12:57 PM
link   
reply to post by JohhnyBGood
 


And how do you know this? Have you actually read the Qu'ran, or are you just saying it because a friend of a friend told you so? You see, a friend of a friend told me something about Islam too. He told me that the Qu'ran forbids killing. Along with a slew of other nice things that I would gladly embrace in my daily life. I guess it all depends on who you choose to trust, hm?
edit on 19-12-2010 by David_Reale because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by David_Reale
reply to post by JohhnyBGood
 


And how do you know this? Have you actually read the Qu'ran, or are you just saying it because a friend of a friend told you so? You see, a friend of a friend told me something about Islam too. He told me that the Qu'ran forbids killing. Along with a slew of other nice things that I would gladly embrace in my daily life. I guess it all depends on who you choose to trust, hm?
edit on 19-12-2010 by David_Reale because: (no reason given)


I first read the Koran 30 yrs ago - I was interested in Sifism at the time and was expecting to read a book full of wisdom etc - i was more than a little surprised to find a rambling incoherrent jumble of nonsense that read more like a charter for genocide than anything else.

It is quite apparent to me that you know nothing at all about Islam!



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 01:07 PM
link   
reply to post by David_Reale
 


I think we're on the same page. I agree that the the "follow-the-leader" mentality is not good, and also that there have been great leaders worth following. However, you can follow a great leader without having the mentality that whatever leader happens to be in power is one worth following.

My problem with organized religion is that by definition you are have to have the "follow-the-leader" mentality - it's a question of who the leader is - typically it is the omnipotent being that is being worshipped, whose characteristics are typically determined by the leaders on earth, and documented in "holy" books, scriptures, myths, etc.. If you are privately spiritual and follow your own thoughts, then I submit that you perhaps you aren't participating in organized religion. That's not necessarily good either though - you might be one of those lone nutters though! :-)



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 01:13 PM
link   
reply to post by JohhnyBGood
 


And it's quite apparent to me that you like to make broad accusations in regard to things you have no knowledge of. Perhaps we shall just agree to disagree, then. "Charter for Genocide" is probably one of the least intelligent ways I've ever heard the Qu'ran be described.



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 01:17 PM
link   
reply to post by peacevic
 


*Sudden epiphamy* Actually, now that I think about it, it's not the "organized religions" themselves that are flawed. Rather, it's the organizations that claim to speak for the religions, that are. They're the true sources of corruption, abuse of power, and cult mentality, not the religion itself.

But you're right, of course. Following a leader blindly, just because he's the leader, never works out well in the end.

And I have to admit, I'm one of those people who practice my spirituality by myself. But as far as I know, fortunately, shamanism, so far, has not begun practicing terrorism.



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 02:40 PM
link   
Re David

You wrote:

"I don't think the problem lies with religion, but with them. They are looking for a reason, any reason, to kill. If it's not religious, then it's something else, I'm sure."

I'm not taking a black/white stance on this, because some people (as you say) are just looking for excuses, while others (as suggested by Peacevic) are herd-minded and will be caught up in all kinds of 'movements', without really knowing how or why.

Not that my following examples necessarily demonstrate a violent outcome, but they do demonstrate the influence of invasive ideology on the passive individual.

The childrens' crusade, where (possibly 20.000) children possessed by holy zeal, started on the hopeless project of whatever their aim was. A considerable part of them dying in vain.

The mesmeric talents of Hitler, who in pre-war Germany could sway people to extremes (if my memory is correct, the english ambassador once found himself yelling "Sieg heil" in one of the inflamed crowds listening to Aldolf).

So the potential for using ideology manipulatively is there. And it would be carrying political correctness too far to postulate, that organized religion (in both deed and doctrine) doesn't contain elements of commanded violence. (Former South American sacrifical religions, Kali-worshippers, 'christian soldiers', the sons of light etc).



new topics

top topics



 
18
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join