Christian Terrorists Kill American Civilians and Shoot Police

[GMDino]

(12-02-2015, 12:01 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Hope is probably the better word.

I don't know about "hope".  It is more than likely it was a combination of religious belief, political rhetoric, and flat out lies and propaganda that made a guy think the right answer was to take a weapon and go to kill people.  But it will be put on the every growing list of "lone crazy guy" by some so we can pretend its not terrorism and that we don't have any problems with such things in 'Murica.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

These so called "lone, crazy guys" don't grow up in a vacuum.

[*michaelsean*]

(12-02-2015, 12:55 AM)Vas Deferens Wrote: I'm confident my phrasing and word choice accurately depicts my sentiments on the subject. Shall I interpret your revision as a threat? Please elaborate on the consequences should aforementioned statements of my 'belief' be incorrect.‎

What the hell are you talking about?

[Belsnickel]

Some of the interviews I have seen have had people describing Dear as evangelical and praising the extremist anti abortionist group Army of God as heroes. It seems he self identified as a Christian. His actions were not those that the majority of Christians would consider to be Christian, just as the actions of Jihadists would not be actions the majority of Muslims would consider to be within the tenants of Islam.

For the record, I get that the idea of this thread was to call to the carpet the hypocrisy of avoiding referring to this terrorist as Christian while referring to Jihadists as Muslim and using their image to paint the entire community. I just wanted to maybe address it in a more direct way.

[*michaelsean*]

(12-02-2015, 10:24 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Some of the interviews I have seen have had people describing Dear as evangelical and praising the extremist anti abortionist group Army of God as heroes. It seems he self identified as a Christian. His actions were not those that the majority of Christians would consider to be Christian, just as the actions of Jihadists would not be actions the majority of Muslims would consider to be within the tenants of Islam.

For the record, I get that the idea of this thread was to call to the carpet the hypocrisy of avoiding referring to this terrorist as Christian while referring to Jihadists as Muslim and using their image to paint the entire community. I just wanted to maybe address it in a more direct way.

And it depends on why you do something.  If a Muslim shoots a guy in a robbery his religion is irrelevant.  If a Muslim starts shooting people in the name of Islam then it is relevant.

[GMDino]

(12-02-2015, 10:28 AM)michaelsean Wrote: And it depends on why you do something.  If a Muslim shoots a guy in a robbery his religion is irrelevant.  If a Muslim starts shooting people in the name of Islam then it is relevant.

But this wasn't a robbery.  It wasn't a domestic.  

His "motives", whether they be religious or political or personal, make him a terrorist.  And (probably) a Christian one.

Matt laid it out clearly enough.

[*michaelsean*]

(12-02-2015, 10:57 AM)GMDino Wrote: But this wasn't a robbery.  It wasn't a domestic.  

His "motives", whether they be religious or political or personal, make him a terrorist.  And (probably) a Christian one.

Matt laid it out clearly enough.

I didn't say it didn't make him a terrorist, I'm commenting on the relevance of his being Christian.  It may very well be that it is relevant.  Timothy McVeigh was a terrorist, but nobody refers to his religious beliefs because they weren't relevant to his act.  (I hope you don't perceive my disagreeing with you as a threat.)

If he's a Christian terrorist, then I have no problem saying that. I just won't have the joy in saying it that others may have.

[StLucieBengal]

(11-30-2015, 08:25 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: The response I anticipated.

1.  Added that detail in there just to let you know I'm boning a chick you would classify a savage.   Not a big deal, she would classify you much worse, but based on your merits or lack thereof.

2.  Yeah.  I'll bet you would take me up.  It was pretty cut and dry, but you know what the outcome will be so you chose not to take that bet.

3.  I roll you into the radical category because thats the portrait you've painted.  I doubt you remember half of the claims you've made, but some of them have been violent and meant to intimidate portions of the populace through force or oppressive tactics.  Maybe its just you posturing and puffing up your feathers to make the internet know what a Type A kind of a guy you are, but you'll need to live with the outcome at this point.

4.  Who said anything about betting on who looses their life next?  I put the proposition on the table, you didn't want to take it.  Not very Type A of you.

As I said before.  I'm still going to make a donation to a womens reproductive health centered charity in your honor.  Going to reach out to a friend to see who she would suggest.  Hopefully they have an 'in honor of' section on the donation form.  

That part made me laugh. Hey there is somebody for everybody... I am Glad you are happy.

[Belsnickel]

(12-02-2015, 11:25 AM)michaelsean Wrote: I didn't say it didn't make him a terrorist, I'm commenting on the relevance of his being Christian.  It may very well be that it is relevant.  Timothy McVeigh was a terrorist, but nobody refers to his religious beliefs because they weren't relevant to his act.  (I hope you don't perceive my disagreeing with you as a threat.)

If he's a Christian terrorist, then I have no problem saying that. I just won't have the joy in saying it that others may have.

He had made commentary of a religious nature regarding his anti-abortion stance. There is sufficient evidence to suggest that his acts were religiously motivated, however misguided they may have been.

[*bfine32*]

I think it is nothing more than a feeble attempt at rhetoric.

If this or any other act was funded by a Christian organization or a Christian Organization called for the killing of innocents then I would give the title of the OP some merit; outside of that, it has no merit. I will say it is amusing to see some try to draw a correlation.

[Belsnickel]

(12-02-2015, 02:02 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I think it is nothing more than a feeble attempt at rhetoric.

If this or any other act was funded by a Christian organization or a Christian Organization called for the killing of innocents then I would give the title of the OP some merit; outside of that, it has no merit. I will say it is amusing to see some try to draw a correlation.

While he failed to cause casualties amongst the staff, the Army of God is who he has referred to as heroes of his and he has espoused their rhetoric according to some interviews with people who knew him. I'd say it is more credible than "a feeble attempt at rhetoric" to come to the conclusion that his motivation was religiously motivated in some part and that religion was something that those adherents claim falls within Christianity.

[Vas Deferens]

(12-02-2015, 10:17 AM)michaelsean Wrote: What the hell are you talking about?

Talking about you saying I HOPE there is a connection.  Please expand if you'd like.

[*bfine32*]

(12-02-2015, 02:10 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: While he failed to cause casualties amongst the staff, the Army of God is who he has referred to as heroes of his and he has espoused their rhetoric according to some interviews with people who knew him. I'd say it is more credible than "a feeble attempt at rhetoric" to come to the conclusion that his motivation was religiously motivated in some part and that religion was something that those adherents claim falls within Christianity.

...and I am sure this "Army of God" is in no way affiliated with the Christian Church; they appear to be a terrorist organization.

[Belsnickel]

(12-02-2015, 03:09 PM)bfine32 Wrote: ...and I am sure this "Army of God" is in no way affiliated with the Christian Church; they appear to be a terrorist organization.

What do you mean by "the Christian Church"? There is no single Christian body that they would have to have some sort of connection to. The front man for the organization is an ordained Christian minister. They declare their religious motivation for their stance and they claim it is Christian. I'm confused as to your stance as they are considered to be a Christian terrorist organization.

If your position is that their actions are not Christian in nature, I agree and have explained my opinion on this a few posts back. But if that is your argument you are not making it clearly here.

[*michaelsean*]

(12-02-2015, 02:13 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: Talking about you saying I HOPE there is a connection.  Please expand if you'd like.

Expand?  It was pretty self-explanatory.  I'm a little afraid to repeat it and frighten you again.  "You hope there is a connection."  I know.  Scary words.  

[Vas Deferens]

(12-02-2015, 03:26 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Expand?  It was pretty self-explanatory.  I'm a little afraid to repeat it and frighten you again.  "You hope there is a connection."  I know.  Scary words.  

I still don't get it.  Why would I 'HOPE' there is a connection?  I would obviously prefer there were no connection and the radical christian right stayed the **** out of other peoples business.  Don't want to have an abortion?  Don't have one.  Pretty simple.

You're inferring there would have been some sort of consequences if I was wrong about my original post, which at this point I clearly am not.  

[*Nately120*]

I think I brought this up before and I'm not sure if it was addressed or if it's simply incorrect BUT did this guy cite the "baby parts" video/belief as a motivating factor? Wasn't that repeated by at least one Republican presidential candidate? Is this guy a Republican Terrorist if he listens to their misleading rhetoric and then takes extreme action?

Should people really be repeating incorrect and inflammatory things as if they were truth, particularly on one of the world's biggest stages? Is it acceptable to have people of power and with an audience repeat these things and then say "Hey, I didn't MAKE anyone do anything!"

[*bfine32*]

(12-02-2015, 03:20 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: What do you mean by "the Christian Church"? There is no single Christian body that they would have to have some sort of connection to. The front man for the organization is an ordained Christian minister. They declare their religious motivation for their stance and they claim it is Christian. I'm confused as to your stance as they are considered to be a Christian terrorist organization.

If your position is that their actions are not Christian in nature, I agree and have explained my opinion on this a few posts back. But if that is your argument you are not making it clearly here.

Does this organization receive Federal assistance and other type of aid, to include tax breaks under the faith based initiatives?

[*michaelsean*]

(12-02-2015, 03:30 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: I still don't get it.  Why would I 'HOPE' there is a connection?  I would obviously prefer there were no connection and the radical christian right stayed the **** out of other peoples business.  Don't want to have an abortion?  Don't have one.  Pretty simple.

You're inferring there would have been some sort of consequences if I was wrong about my original post, which at this point I clearly am not.  

Of course you hoped there was a connection.  One need only look at the approach you took to creating this thread.  Not one word of sympathy for the victims.

I really have no idea what you are talking about me implying some sort of consequence or what you saw as a threat. 

"Hope is probably the better word."  Nope.  Still don't see it.

[*Nately120*]

(12-02-2015, 03:54 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Of course you hoped there was a connection.  One need only look at the approach you took to creating this thread.  Not one word of sympathy for the victims.

My sympathy for the victims is expressed in the form of "Hey, let's stop acting like all these weekly shootings are unfathomable freak occurrences."  So while I'm not saying they are "in my thoughts" or "in my prayers" I DO hope and pray that people stop being so naive about these "freak occurrences" that happen on a weekly basis in this country.

Sympathy is expressed in different forms. Again, I'm a cynic but I feel like many people think expressing sympathy in this case is just to not look into it, call it hopelessly evil, impossible to predict or prevent, and to just say he/she is praying for the victims. End scene. Again, me = cynic