Talk:Christian terrorism/Archive 2

message: This was posted to the article page by User:ChristianAnarchist. I moved it here. Tom Harrison Talk 14:58, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (By Christian Anarchist) What a bunch of politically justified fluff. There are no references to this new term "Christian Terrorist" except here and perhaps in our new "Gestapo", the "Fatherland Security Agency". Today, any violence perpetrated by someone who claims to be a "Christian" is termed "Christian Terrorism" when in fact, it's just a crime committed by someone who claims to be a "Christian". There is a political agenda behind promoting this here-to-fore unheard of term, "Christian Terroist". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ChristianAnarchist (talk • contribs) .
ChristianAnarchist: We welcome your approach to this subject as long as it is presented in a neutral way.  Please refrain from opinionated posts, as Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a soapbox.--Urthogie 15:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  politically justified fluff 

message: Is anyone oppose to moving this page to Christian extremist terrorism?  I think that title would make sense because the crusades were clearly a mainstream interpretation of religion in their time, and we can have this article be more focused on the modern day extremists who blow themselves up, instead of having to overlap tons with the Crusades articles.--Urthogie 17:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes and no. I'd very much like this article to conform to a standard it seems we're going to get from the vote on the move of Islamist terrorism to Islamic extremist terrorism (or Muslim etc., depending on consensus). On the other hand, as much as the Crusades have their own articles, I don't think the mention they have on this article is superfluous. As mainstream as they may have been in their days, one goal of the campaigns was arguably to terrorize the Muslim states. --TVPR 11:34, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My logic is that some politically correct christian will one day come to this article and ask for a page move, and its better that we find a reasonable middleground in advance.--Urthogie 12:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm somewhat bewildered, as it seems the crusades are no longer mentioned here - indeed, they have not been for some time. But yes, you are absolutely correct. And again, I would strongly support any reasonable uniform standard convention of naming, "~ extremist terrorism" is as good as any in this respect.--TVPR 13:01, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok.  It seems like Christian extremist terrorism is a red link, so we don't need to fill out a requested move.  I'll give 48 more hours for anyone to raise concerns or oppose:--Urthogie 13:08, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  page move 

message: The hypocrisy and denial one sees is astounding. -61.58.53.139
'A key purpose of this group was to create a scapegoat for the outbreak of the war and Germany's defeat. The scapegoats were found in "international Jewry," communists and politicians across the party spectrum, especially the parties of the Weimar Coalition, who were deemed "November criminals".' Taken from Adolf Hitler.  Hitler looked at Jews and saw a scapegoat.  He did not attack them because he was a Christian terrorist.  If he was a Christian terrorist, why did he also attack gypsies and communists? -Mystaker1 04:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Nazis weren't exactly Christian by any stretch of the imagination. See Nazi mysticism. jdb ❋ (talk) 18:22, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  If the KKK and Adolf Hitler aren't "christian terrorists", then Osama bin Laden can't possibly be a "muslim terrorist" 

message: The order's article doesn't mention faith and God's Army is "vaguely based on principles of Christianity" and I don't take threats well keep screwing with me and I'll have you banned.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.241.246.111 (talk • contribs) 00:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's against Wikipedia policy to keep reverting edits without reasoning them. I could always call upon the 3RR, to have this entry blocked from editing. Also, Wikipedia articles do not draw from other Wikipedia articles for reasoning, or as sources. Ergo, what the Order's article says about their faith and whatnot is irrelevant to what this article is to say about them. So I revert once more. --TVPR 01:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  is de master satisfied? 

message: "Lane also vilifies at length the particular groups he believes to be leading the destruction of whites. The roster is familiar: Jews, who rule Western nations in an attempt to “mix, overrun and exterminate the White race”; Christianity, whose clergy he calls “lying, deceiving, greedy, selfish, treasonous swine”......."
http://www.adl.org/learn/ext_us/lane.asp?LEARN_Cat=Extremism&LEARN_SubCat=Extremism_in_America&xpicked=2&item=lane
132.241.246.111 02:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Congratulations, you've now found a somewhat reliable source regarding one of the founding members of The Order. If you could add more references such as this for the group's leader, or the group itself, preferably from a source not blatantly pushing a pro-judeo-christian POV, within a weeks time, I'll leave your edit as it is. --TVPR 09:51, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

text: What facts? And which POV would I be pushing? --TVPR 08:04, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

text: This proves nothing. That one of the leaders of the UN is South African does not make it a South African organization. Be reasonable, and provide empirical facts rather than attempts at false logic. --TVPR 12:58, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Most scholarship on the Order describes it as a mixed group, emerging in part from Christian Identity, but also from other sectors of the white supermacist movement.  I doubt it is fair to call it Christian terrorism without some sort of caveat.--Cberlet 13:25, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mmm, I can relate to that. So, do you think the link to them should be removed altogether, or do you have any better suggestions?--TVPR 10:36, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  lol 

message: If "Islamic Terrorism" can be tolerated then why not White Christian Terrorism. Is wikipedia only for the white folks?
AmandaParker
Well some Islamics are white, so I don't see how the race card can be played here.--M4bwav 01:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  If "Islamic Terrorism" can be tolerated then why not [[White Christian Terrorism]]. Is wikipedia only for the white folks? 

message: I'm about to (ie I will have by the time you're reading this) move this page to Christian extremist terrorism, for balance with Islamic extremist terrorism. The reason? They both describe much the same situation (people committing terrorist acts in what they see as the furtherance of religious goals, but the justification for which is contested by other followers of that religion) in relation to a different religion, therefore it seems inconsistent to use different names. Cynical 11:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tis a mistake, these pages ought to be called simply Christian terrorism and Islamic terrorism, your just being weasely by adding extremist.  And saying "Islamist terrorism" is even worse since not all Islamic terrorists are Islamists.  134.214.102.33 14:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page move 

message: "Examples of Attacks and Aggression" cites the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing as a christian terrorist event. The article, however, makes no reference to Christianity, although the attack on the Branch Davidians is noted as being a possible catalyst for McVeigh's actions. Could someone please explain how this event is an act of "Christian extremist terrorism"? --Aphyr
:It's not period. McVeigh's opposition ot the Waco incident was not religiously motivated, but because it saw it as too much of an increase in federal government power. Hell, McVeigh himself was an agnostic. It's removed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.123.221.244 (talk • contribs) .
::From the McVeigh article : "McVeigh and his siblings lived with their father, a devout Catholic who often attended Daily Mass. Timothy McVeigh professed his present belief in "a God" in a recorded interview with Time Magazine. The Guardian reported that McVeigh wrote a letter claiming to be an agnostic, but no text of such a letter (or tangible proof of its existence) has been published or made public in any medium. McVeigh accepted the Sacrament of Extreme Unction from a priest of the Roman Catholic Church shortly before his death, and he had been visited by a priest during his time in prison"  Sounds like a Christian to me.  -- noosphere 22:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While his religious affiliation is disputable, the bombing was not religiously motivated.65.123.221.244 03:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oklahoma City Bombing 

message: The Posse Comitatus incident was recently removed by User:65.123.221.244 with the reason that "while the group had ties to extremist groups like Christian Idenitty, it was a mostly secular ideology".  Yet, according to Stephen Rendahl in Gordon Kahl's Demonic Rhetoric:
Furthermore, according to the article on Gordon Kahl:
Again, it's hard to dispute that Kahl was a Christian.  -- noosphere 23:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Posse Comitatus 

message: I object to the second paragraph in the introduction, which currently states that the majority of Christians tolerate or silently agree with Christian acts of terrorism. I would argue that Christian acts of terrorism are for the most part kept out of the mainstream media, and that most Christians simply are not aware that acts of terrorism are occuring in the name of their religion, other than the Protestant/Catholic troubles in Ireland that has gone on for so long. Many churches speak out on a regular basis against Christians committing violence against Muslims in reponse to 9/11, against abortion clinics, or for racist or homophobic agendas. CClio333 11:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Real Reason for the Lack of Condemnation by Christians 

message: Why is NI on the list of Christian Terrorists? NI is a nationalist and not religious concern, and any violence is in the name of either Unionism or Nationalism. The only link to Christianity is that participants are in a Christian country, and that the nationalist/unionist division also happens to be a Catholic/Protestant division, labels used by the news as they are easier to understand than nationalist/unionist. To say that The Troubles are a religious problem is nonsense, and I propose that they are removed from the list of Christian terrorism. I apologise for the poor formatting, I'm a bit new at this.
:I support this removal or at least add a disputed-comment there. When the guns in ireland where still smoking I never ever have seen the slightest grudge against the confession of the enemy but a lot of against their position towards britain. Being catholic myself I have been able to talk to both sides without the slightes sign of prejudices, it simply doesn't matter what confession you are as long as long as you don't touch "the british" subject. Crass Spektakel 10:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Northern Ireland

message: How come I can't find any references whatsoever to the execution of christian terrorists in Indoensia? 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/5366226.stm
Regardless of whether or not they really were reponsible or really were terrorists or whatever, it seems wikipedia is entirely silent on this issue. Here is a instance of Christian terrorism that is difficult to dispute.Entropy Rising 18:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say its because this event only happened two days ago and no one has had time to do anything yet. Write something up on it. CClio333 19:31, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Christian terrorists executed in Indonesia

message: There are several references, not a reference for every claim, but still. So, I've removed the "no references" tag, for now. Robocracy 17:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: There *are* references