Talk:Christian terrorism

Archives

---

1. September 2004 – October 2005
2. January 2006 – September 2006
3. October 2006 – February 2007
4. April 2007 – Dec 2007
5. January 2008 – August 2008

-anti-Catholic-

i have noticed that this particular article seems to not only paint Catholicism in a highly negative light, it also seems to be justifying these organizations actions. this article is in serious need of an impartial re-write.

Rexism

Recommend deleting this section, as it doesn't present any instances of terrorism.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Scope

Understand what "terror" is - in this context it is a climate of fear, in particular one created to achieve political or social ends - a terrorist is one who deliberately creates this climate of fear, usually partly or mainly by violent means. While a Christian terrorist is vacuously a terrorist who is also Christian, Christian terrorism needs to apply only to terrorism that is motivated, or possibly justified, by Christian beliefs. There will be enough of these without shoe-horning other cases into the article. Explicitly we should not include:

• Violent agents who are not terrorists.
• Agents who are not motivated by Christian belief.
• "Wannabe" terrorists.
• Agents who happen to espouse a bunch of particularly hateful ideas but do not fit the category
• Those who are merely "associated with", have "strong ties to" or had membership relations (were members of, had as members, shared members with) legitimate subjects of the article.

Rich Farmbrough, 13:35 4 November 2008 (UTC).

KKK

I have removed this section for the above reasons

1. KKK were not a Christian movement as far as I can see.
2. None of the incarnations worked on terror, although probably intimidation.

The section was also largely composed of inaccuracy (KKK opposed Reconstruction, for example) and details of modern hate crime.

Rich Farmbrough, 14:59 4 November 2008 (UTC).

Your changes: [1]

• The Christian theology of the KKK is widely known (and was referenced) - it was not random that the burning Christian cross became their symbol. "It was revived during the Civil Rights era and continues today as a small organization that continues to stage demonstrations in favor of white supremacy and fundamentalist Christian theology."[2] Reconstruction!=Christian Reconstructionism. "Their theology is strongly influenced by Christian Reconstructionism"[3]

Look at the WP article, it uses neither the word Christian nor terrorist. True that present day Klans include "white Christian" groups, but the first two Klans, while undoubtedly composed largely of Christians were politically and racially motivated. Rich Farmbrough, 10:10 18 November 2008 (UTC).

• If blowing up the Houses of Parliament wasn't an act of terrorism, then blowing up the World Trade Center wasn't an act of terrorism. Shall we therefore remove the Sept. 11th attacks from Islamic terrorism? I thought not.

Ah the WP:POKEMON defence? 5/11 was an attempted coup. Whether 9/11 was an act of war or terrorism or another "spectacular" has of course been debated widely: nonetheless it is generally regarded a such. If, however, you wanted to remove it from the Islamic terrorism page (I assume there is one) go to it! Rich Farmbrough, 10:10 18 November 2008 (UTC).

So, according to you, blowing up the government and murdering hundreds of politicians would be a "coup", and not an act of terrorism? This logic astounds me. 129.215.37.163 (talk) 19:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

• Clifford Peeples: a Christian Pastor imprisoned for terrorism who specialises in "recounting lurid stories of Catholic savagery towards Protestants, and in finding biblical justifications for Protestant retaliation". How on Earth is Mr Peeples inappropriate?

I forget. Let me go and look. Rich Farmbrough, 10:10 18 November 2008 (UTC).

OK he's a "self styled Pastor" whose attempted violence is based on the following: " But when his flower shop on the Crumlin Road in north Belfast was ransacked four years ago, he blamed it on loyalist protection racketeers." In the scale of NI being caught with weapons is scarcely a blip. So he's a wannabe terrorist, barely or not notable for that, motivation dubious, maybe notable in the wider context of sectarian conflict. If we are going to include NI terrorists by name - even just those who, say, successfully killed someone, or detonated bomb then the article will be four times as long. It makes more sense to briefly summarise The Troubles and refer to the main article. Rich Farmbrough, 10:25 18 November 2008 (UTC).

He was an ordained Pastor and the leader of a terrorist group that carried out a bombing campaign against Catholic churches because they were (in his words) "bastions of the Anti-Christ". He was arrested, found in possession of bombs, and found guilty of offences under the Anti-Terrorism Act. It is clear that he was a Christian terrorist. But whatever. Have fun removing as much of this article as you can. 129.215.37.163 (talk) 19:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

This Article Sucks

Warning to all who read this article: Not only is it terribly written and all over the place but it is full of outright falsehoods. This entire article should be deleted and re-written , but until then believe NOTHING here that you can't independently verify. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.188.55.240 (talk) 21:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree, this article is biased up to over its ears. It looks like it's made specifically to "balance" 'muslim terrorism' thinking "if there is muslim terrorism, then there must be christian terrorism, otherwise it isn't politically correct". 90% of the content in this article is not christian terrorism as the people mentioned were simply christians but not motivated by christianity. Eric R. Rudolph and other anti-abortion warriors do qualify I think but the rest is pushing it. The northern Ireland section is absolutely bullshit. This article needs to be rewritten from the bottom up. PS: Don't be a coward and delete this T.R. 87.59.78.243 (talk) 21:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the following text,:

The religious divide between Roman Catholics and Protestants was the defining difference betwwen the two sides in The Troubles, although this was expressed in political terms.

As this is conflating identity and causation, much like the NATO Objection.

and:

First Minister of Northern Ireland The Revd. and Rt. Hon. Ian Paisley often cast the conflict in religious terms. He preached that the Roman Catholic Church, which he termed "Popery", had deviated from the Bible, and therefore from true Christianity, giving rise to "revolting superstitions and idolatrous abuses". Paisley held that there were links between the Catholic Church and the Provisional Irish Republican Army, a group which is classified as a proscribed terrorist group in the United Kingdom and as an illegal organisation in the Republic of Ireland.. He once said "The Provisional IRA is the military wing of the Roman Catholic Church" and has claimed several times that the Pope is the Antichrist, most famously at the European Parliament, where he interrupted a speech by Pope John Paul II, shouting "I denounce you as the Antichrist!" and holding up a red poster reading "POPE JOHN PAUL II ANTICHRIST".

Pastor Alan Campbell has also identified the Papacy as the Antichrist, and has described the IRA as "Roman Catholic terrorists". Campbell preaches a Christian Identity theology; he is strongly against race-mixing, and supports the British Israel hypothesis, claiming that the Celto-Anglo-Saxon people of Ulster are the true "Israel of God".

As claiming that another religious group is causing terrorism or inciting hatred is not terrorism.

and:

Sweeney argued that self-immolation, in the form of hunger strikes by Irish republicans, was religiously motivated and perceived. He wrote:

"The Rising catapulted the cult of self-sacrifice to centre stage of twentieth century Irish militant politics in a strange marriage of Catholicism and republicanism. A religious and a sacrificial motif can be detected in the writings of those who participated in the 'bloody protest'".

As hunger strikes do not constitute terrorism.--Dishcmds (talk) 04:20, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Christian_terrorism#POV_pushing_in_this_articleCLS (talk) 14:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I haven't gotten past the anti-abortionists. If these crackpots, criminals, and murderers are considered "Christian terrorists" then every crackpot Muslim who ever lifted an AK47 yelling "God is Great" deserves to be immortalised as an Islamic terrorist, without fine distinctions of "Islamist" or "Islamic" or "suicide martyr etc." This does look (mainly) like a tit-for-tat ("balance") article to me. Tundrabuggy (talk) 17:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Saying that this article "sucks" is an insult to articles that suck. It is hugely POV and I have little doubt that it's author(s) really hate Christians with a passion. It's because of articles like this that many people simply don't trust anything on Wikipedia. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 20:38, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

The following should be deleted, as Christianity is only part of their motivation.93.96.148.42 (talk) 03:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC) Russian National Unity

Russian National Unity is an outlawed far right party responsible for several terrorist attacks, including murders on religious grounds, and the bombing of the US Consulate in Ekaterinburg.[68] In their manifesto "Bases of social conception of RNU" they advocate an increased role for the Russian Orthodox Church in all areas of life.[71]

[edit] Russian National Socialists

The Russian National Socialist Party bases itself on four principles: Orthodox Christianity, a strong state, aggressive Russian nationalism and non-Marxist socialism. Party leader A. Barkashov has advocated "a Hitlerite racial biology, and proclaims the need for creating an armed resistance movement against the supposed Jewish dictatorship in Russia."[69] In August 2007, a 23 year old member of the group was arrested for distributing a video on the Internet that showed two Muslims apparently being beheaded and shot by a militant wing of the RNSP.[72][73][74]

NATO Christian terrorists?

Why NATO is not recognized as a NATO Christian terrorist organization? Wikipedia is showing its bias opinion?? More than 90% of the NATO countries are Christian fundamentalist nations with over 80-90% of the army made up of Christian terrorist soldiers. Then, why NATO is not a Christian terrorist organization? In Afghanistan and Iraq there are many NATO lead Christian missionaries. Therefore by definition, creating a war to eliminate one religion and popularize other, is a religious terrorist act. Period. You cannot have both ways!

Ah, the human tendency to exaggerate how awful the other side is. NATO is a secular body commited to western security. Western does not automatically equal white or Christian security. There, apart from The Vatican, is no such thing as a Christian fundamentalist nation. Sioraf (talk) 02:34, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes... I agree with Sioraf. It just cross my mind because when some people describe armies such as Indian Army for example, they say "a Hindu" army even though it is not. So, if Indian Army is a Hindu army, NATO should be a Christian army. That's why I asked the question here. I don't want to offend anyone here :) Please note that, since Russia ALSO a SECULAR BODY, we should not attack Russia just because they are Communist. Also it is a fact during the NATO mission to Afghanistan and Iraq, so far MOST of the non-combat people went in to the area have hidden agenda of popularizing Christianity in Middle East. For example, "Secular Canada" have provided safe passage to Christian missionaries in Afghanistan, while refused to provide a safe passage to Islamic missionaries because they are labelled as "terrorists". Let me get this thing straight; so... if you allow the NATO security forces to search anything you carry into the region, why refuse to provide safety for one group while providing it for the other? That's look very suspicious. I am not a Muslim nor I support f*** Islamic terrorists. But every story has two sides. I don't want to be a victim of another 9/11, but I fear because of our double standard in NATO, we created more enemies than friends. For example, home grown terrorism as a result of our own action?

NATO armies are neither considered terrorists nor Christian. The US army for examples has jewish, muslim and wiccan chaplains.also your opinion is not valid. that is it is original research. If you had a valid source saying that NATO was a Christian terrorist group, then you could talk. 67.176.160.47 (talk) 22:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Motivation

In order to satisfy the definition of christian terrorist it has to be verified that they were acting from their religious beliefs or their adherence to religious dogma. However, where do you place the Northern Ireland troubles, for example? The obvious case can be made that each side use religion as a pretense for their actions, but are doing so disingenuously. How then do you decipher whether they were truly acting from religious motivations, or under the guise of religious motivation? The discussion can sink deeper into the underlying drives that cause people to adhere to religion anyway, so that one could say that in Islamic terrorism, for example, the acts are not so much borne from their adherence to Islam, but from a narcissistic wound that is given voice through their religion. How then to define christian terrorism, islamic terrorism or any form of terrorism in the name of something? Ninahexan (talk) 05:18, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you. An islamic terrorist is not any terrorist who happened to been born into a muslim family. As well a christian terrorist is not any terrorist who happened to been born into a christian family. There should be shown a motivation based on religion. Otherwise a terrorist should not be called islamic or christian or any other religious terrorist. The causation from religion to terrorism should be proven before calling terrorism religious. Uikku (talk) 20:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

OK City Bomber & KKK

KKK is not Christian, but ultra-nationalist. Nowhere can I find an assertion that Tim McVeigh or the other two were Christian either. I have removed the KKK section and will remove the Oklahoma City bombing too as "not Christian" -- not "Christian Identity" or anything at all. Please discuss before you re-add. Thanks Tundrabuggy (talk) 05:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The KKK clearly belongs in the article according to references that were deleted (e.g. "It was revived during the Civil Rights era and continues today as a small organization that continues to stage demonstrations in favor of white supremacy and fundamentalist Christian theology") and other historical citations (e.g. "Young set forth the Klan's goal in terms of Christian morality v. sin."[4]). Warped as they may be, the KKK groups are reliably-sourced as operating in the name of Christianity, and to claim otherwise is WP:OR. —EqualRights (talk) 08:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

the KKK has some sections that might belong, but generally they do not because it is not Christian, but mixes a number of different belief systems and is often antagonistic to Christianity, much of it is pagan. Hardyplants (talk)

If there are reliable sources, you should add that qualification. —EqualRights (talk) 13:39, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Googling the topic mostly yields information quoted from this very page, which may suggest that we are responsible for unduly propagating a view held by a minority. I recommend removal and/or taking the debate to the actual KKK article itself, which does not currently make this assertion.   — C M B J   18:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the Time reference, ("Young set forth the Klan's goal in terms of Christian morality v. sin") we are talking 1920's. This is all ancient history, soon to be a century ago. Young was a fundraiser, and apparently effective. Of course, "Christian" morality v. sin, is not in itself a "Christian" thing so much as it is a cultural thing. After all, they are/were "virulently" anti-Catholic, so at best we could say they are a "Protestant" group. Perhaps we can say something about them as an historical phenomenon, but so far I can't see how they qualify as a "Christian group" as we define such groups these days these days. But I will check out the other reference(s) as apparently I missed something. Thanks for weighing in. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:15, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I honestly don't see a rationale for any form of inclusion unless the KKK article forms a consensus to support it first. Doing so would merely establish a POV fork.   — C M B J   04:27, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

You have a valid point about a POV fork. I did check those references, and most do not establish the KKK was based on a Christian theology. This one: refers to them as a "paramilitary" group (pg 13, and says "virtually everyone in the Souther operated under a broadly shared evangelical Protestant ethos that pervaded the region" (to speak to the view I stated above that Christian morality=culture not religion). The book White Terror: The Ku Klux Klan Conspiracy and Southern Reconstruction can be searched at Amazon and has only one reference to "Christianity" but consistently refers to them as "politically motivated." Neither of the two books given as references include page numbers. The PBS link is too complicated to search. According to the About.com link: "The Ku Klux Klan is America's oldest, most visible and most (in)famous hate group." They do add: "Today the KKK has been greatly weakened as their views have become more and more radical. They consider themselves a Christian organization and base their doctrines upon their own reading of the Bible," but it is not clear how long they have been this way. Nor am I sure that About.com qualifies as a wiki RS. Nor is not at all clear that this group started out "Christian." I do take your point that this should be in the KKK article before it is brought here as an aspect of US "Christian terrorism." Tundrabuggy (talk) 05:05, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

The KKK has a varied history and is not one single group with a consistent history. The KKK of the 20's and 30's does belong here (it was more like a white protestant cult at that time), unlike 70 percent of the groups that were listed in the article. The modern version of the KKK is a different horse. Hardyplants (talk) 08:06, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

The KKK is primarily viewed as a racist group, yet an article on Christian terrorism can not be written without mention of them. 67.176.160.47 (talk) 23:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Uh, to assert that the KKK does not consider itself a Christian group and hasn't historically is nothing short of denialism. 98.168.192.162 (talk) 10:33, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Ethnic, political, and secular conflicts

The following groups should be considered for removal, on a case-by-case basis:

• Continuity Irish Republican Army

Type: Paramilitary

Ideology: Irish republicanism, Irish nationalism

• Irish National Liberation Army

Type: Paramilitary

Ideology: Irish republicanism, Irish nationalism, Marxism

• Irish People's Liberation Organisation

Type: Paramilitary

Ideology: Irish republicanism, Irish nationalismt

• Iron Guard

Type: Political, paramilitary

Beliefs: Romanian Orthodox

Origin(s): Founded by an ex-leader of the National-Christian Defense League

Ideology: Ultranationalism, fascism, antisemitism

• Lord's Resistance Army

Type: Militancy

Beliefs: Christian syncretism (Christianity, Mysticism, Islam, Ugandan traditional religion, and witchcraft)

Origin(s): Holy Spirit Movement, Uganda People's Democratic Army

Ideology: Ugandan nationalism, religious nationalism (contested)

Goals: Remove current Ugandan administration; end oppression of the Ugandan/Acholi people; restore competitive multi-party democracy in Uganda; end human rights violations against Ugandans; restore peace and security in Uganda; ensure unity, sovereignty and economic prosperity to all Ugandans; end NRA policies that repress dissidents; establish a constitution based on laws that reflect the Ten Commandments (contested)

• Loyalist Volunteer Force

Ideology: Irish unionism, Ulster loyalism

• National Liberation Front of Tripura

Type: Militancy

Origin(s): Splinter group formed by an ex-leader of the Tripura National Volunteers

Ideology: Tripuri nationalism

Goals: Secede from India; establish an independent ethnic (Tripura) state; attain liberation from neocolonialism; instill consciousness against exploitation; secure furtherance of indigenous Tripura culture; unify all tribal political parties

• Nagaland Rebels

Ideology: Various; primarily Naga nationalism

• Official Irish Republican Army

Ideology: Irish republicanism

• Provisional Irish Republican Army

Ideology: Irish republicanism

• Real Irish Republican Army

Ideology: Irish republicanism

• Red Hand Commandos

Ideology: Irish unionism, Ulster loyalism

• Russian National Socialist Party

Ideology: Neo-Nazism, Russian ultranationalism, non-Marxist socialism

• Russian National Unity

Type: Political, paramilitary

Ideology: Russian ultranationalism

• Ulster Defence Association

Ideology: Irish unionism, Ulster loyalism

• Ulster Resistance

Ideology: Irish unionism

• Ulster Volunteer Force

Ideology: Irish unionism, Ulster loyalism

Consensus must be established on how to handle groups that are primarily engaged in ethnic and secular struggles. Many of these organizations are largely described as being motivated by causes unrelated to Christianity.

To compare and contrast, the Army of God openly admits that it sanctions violence based on its interpretation of Judeo-Christian values. The Provisional Irish Republican Army, on the other hand, seeks to establish a socialist state and secede from the United Kingdom.   — C M B J   22:02, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I concur, the violence in Northern Ireland is a question of Occupation. The Conflict between the Catholics and Protestants is only a conflict of religion on the surface. Identifying the "other" by their religion came about long after the beginnings of the Occupation by the English Aristocracy and the subsequent "Ulster Plantation" which transplanted the ethno-religious group later referred to as the "scotch-Irish." Furthermore, when our man inserted:

Sweeney argued that self-immolation, in the form of hunger strikes by Irish republicans, was religiously motivated and perceived. He wrote: "The Rising catapulted the cult of self-sacrifice to centre stage of twentieth century Irish militant politics in a strange marriage of Catholicism and republicanism. A religious and a sacrificial motif can be detected in the writings of those who participated in the 'bloody protest'".

Brian O'Higgins, who helped in the rebel capture of Dublin's General Post Office in O'Connell Street, recalled how all the republications took turn reciting the Rosary every half hour during the rebellion. He wrote that there "was hardly a man in the volunteer ranks who did not prepare for death on Easter Saturday [sic] and there were many who felt as they knelt at the altar rails on Easter Sunday morning that they were doing no more than fulfilling their Easter duty - that they were renouncing the world and all the world held for them by making themselves worthy to appear before the Judgement Seat of God... The executions reinforced the sacrificial motif as Mass followed Mass for the dead leaders, linking them with the sacrifice of Christ, the ancient martyrs and heroes, and the honoured dead from previous revolts... These and other deaths by hungerstrike transformed not only the perceived sacrificial victims but, in the eyes of many ordinary Irish people, the cause for which they died. The martyrs and their cause became sacred."

Sweeney went on to note that the culture of hunger strikes continued to be used by the Provisional IRA to great effect in the 1970s and 1980s, resulting in a revamped Sinn Fein, and mobilising huge sections of the Catholic community behind the republican cause.

The major problem with this statement is how ignorant it is of the origins of the Hunger Strike in Ireland. This is a tradition that dates back to Brehon Law in Ireland. If a man of a higher status in the community had wronged a "lesser" member of the community the practice of positioning yourself in front of his home and refusing to eat was the strongest way to call attention to your grievance and also the quickest way to secure redress in most cases. The logic being, if you would let your fellow man starve due to your pride, your status in the community was very quickly lowered. (Burnsie27 (talk) 08:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC))

• "I concur, the violence in Palestine is a question of Occupation." - Why don't you see how far that gets you on Talk:Islamic_terrorism?
• I like it how every group is "Nationalist not Christian"! And yet... The Iron Guard were overtly religious, and they based their entire organisation on religious ideology. The Lord's Resistance Army justify their atrocities with passages from the Bible, and want to replace the Constitution of Uganda with the Ten Commandments. The NLFT have converted entire villages to Christianity at gun-point, and the Church have admitted supplying them with money and weapons. etc. etc.
• Anyway, I'm sure you can construct some excuse as to why the Army of God should be removed from the article ("they commit violence because they are anti-abortionists, not Christians!"). Why don't you just go ahead and delete the whole article? 129.215.37.163 (talk) 19:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

It's ironic that you jest, because Hindu terrorism actually was deleted.   — C M B J   03:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Christanic Terrorism in Iraq

This article will never be complete so long as there are defenders and supporters of Christianic terrorism editing the entry. The crimes against humanity and treason that the Bush regime and his fellow Christian terrorists committed against the people of Iraq and those Christian terrorists who are still raping, torturing, and slaughtering Iraqis will never be allowed to be enumerated here since Christian terrorist simpathizers won't allow it.

Over one million dead Iraqi citizens due to Christianity's latest wave of religious atrocities committed in the name of their gods. Let's have some perspective here. The Christian terrorists who murder people in ones and twos are utterly insignificant compared to the Christianic terrorism against brown people in foreign countries.

Yes, Islamic terrorism and Israeli terrorism are very bad, but Christian terrorists rape and kill far more innocent people than their Islamic colleagues could ever pray to Allah to accomplish.

A little truth in WikiPedia would be welcome. Of course Christian piles of shit won't allow it. Fredric Rice (talk) 01:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Western troops aren't in Iraq because of Christianity, they are in Iraq to establish a Western friendly government which will help to secure and stabilize global oil supplies. The one thing that you appear to be right about is that there are Christian editors who have undermined this article - after checking the history I can confirm that this article used to be much more balanced and informative e.g. this older version of the article contains over 150 references. It seems that a small number of individuals (one of who self-identifies as a Christian attending a religious school) have slowly removed most of the content, usually with the excuse that the groups are partly "nationalist". From reading the discussion archives it appears that the point has already been brought up that the Islamic terrorism article includes such groups - Chechnyan and Caucasus separatists, secular Ba'athist groups, even Hezbollah which was formed primarily as a separatist group fighting a foreign occupying military.

Such bias is to be expected, it is known as observational bias. The majority of English language Wikipedia editors are of white Christian ethnic origins, so it is not surprising that in controversial articles there will be a bias towards that view point (indeed, it would be more surprising to find that there were no bias). I expect the Arabic language articles on Wikipedia are similarly slanted more towards a point of view that originates from a majority Muslim ethnic background, German language articles will represent a more Germanic point of view, etc. There is nothing that can really be done about this - it is an inherent problem of multiple writers that share a common language/cultural/ethnic background (ideally writers would be randomly selected from different cultures and locations, but that is not possible given the constraints of Wikipedia). So, sorry, but that's just the way it is. Nathaniel Black (talk) 13:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, but the man that is at the head of all this, Bush, has declared that "god" told him to invade Iraq. pjh3000 (talk) 02:39, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that the Iraq war was waged in order to convert or attract Iraqi citizens to Christianity, nor is there any evidence that a significant number of the troops that have been or are deployed there believe they are fulfilling a religious obligation. The Iraqi constitution that was approved in 2005 defines the country as an Islamic one, and the current Iraqi national assembly is almost entirely Muslim. End of story. --Jamieli (talk) 18:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

citation please? 67.176.160.47 (talk) 22:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Of course the war crimes against the people of Iraq were and are Christanic terrorism. Witness the Christanic terrorist ideologies spewed by the Bush regime and pay particular attention to William Boykin, Robertson, and the Christanic simpathizers on FOX "News."

• http://returngood.com/2008/08/04/thoughts-on-gen-boykins-christian-justification-for-violence/
• http://www.patrobertson.com/Teaching/patprophecy.asp

The war crimes against Iraq were committed to seize control of Iraq's oil, absolutely, however the Christanic religious extremists undeniably sought such atrocities under the arena of "fighting Satan." Denial that the Iraqi war crimes and terrorism were Christanic terrorism is one of the reasons why Christanic terrorism continues to be the worse in the world.

Slobodan Milošević's war crimes resulted in him being captured and put in prison, and Milošević's terrorist atrocities were equal to the Bush regime's. His faction was one of seven Christanic factions committing terrorism and war crimes in Lebanon at the time and he was jailed for it. The current crop of Christian terrorists still running free in the United States committed the same crimes and terrorism that Milošević did, all predicated upon their religious ideologies.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slobodan_Milo%C5%A1evi%C4%87

Christanic terrorism is far, far worse than Islamic or Israeli terrorism which is admittedly very bad. At the same time the Christanic terrorism committed in the Southern hemisphere of the world under the auspics of the "School of the America" continues to be the world's worse Christianic terrorist training camp.

• http://soaw.org/

Also don't forget that for the past 250 years or so, crimes committed by Islamic and Isreali terrorists were treated as just that: crimes. When Islamic terrorists committed attacks against the United States, hijacked aircraft, and committed other related crimes, the United States successfully handled each incident under the dictates of the law, resulting in an extensive draw-down of such acts through cooperative police work.

At the same time you may recall that political factions routinely hijacked aircraft to Cuba and other destinations in South America, vieing for political and religious recognition, all of which was denied by the United States, all of which was treated as law enforcement issues -- not religious or political.

One of the major complaints of the Islamic terrorists based in Saudi Arabia was that the United States refused to see their (the Islamic terrorists') acts as predicated in some Titanic religious stuggle of good against evil. For two Centuries the United States successfully treated Islamic terrorism as a law enforcement problem specifically to refuse to recognize Islamic and Israeli terrorist acts as a religious war.

The Bush regime changed that stance, something that the Saudi Arabian terrorists of September 11'th and all the Islamic loons prior had desperately desired. With the Bush regime's desire to seize control of Iraq's oil came the denial of all the successful political stances of Centuries past, relabeling the law enforcement / crime-and-punishment arena in to the religious, handing Islamic terrorists their most-sought reclassification, allowing the Islamics to realize their hope that America would "wake up" and realize that they were the evil in a religious stuggle that Islamic crazies wanted Americans to accept was occuring.

And Bush and his fellow Christainic terrorists did it predicated upon their Christianic religious ideologies first and foremost. The oil was primary however once the people of Iraq started to successfully defend themselves, Christianity's and Islam's endless war against each other became top priority.

So long as Christians refuse to accept and admit that their death-centric cult is the worse when it comes to world terrorism, this Wikipedia article will never be allowed to be complete. Fredric Rice (talk) 18:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

NLFT are fundamentalist Christian?

According to the constitution for the National Liberation Front of Tripura, the groups goals and ideology seems to reflect along socialist and nationalist lines than Christian fundamentalism.

http://www.satp.org/satporgtp/countries/india/states/tripura/documents/papers/nlft_const.htm

Additionally, the group's charter explicitly says that Tripurans of any creed may join their ranks:

MEMBERSHIP :

(a) Any person irrespective of caste, sex or creed who is dedicated to what is best in the traditional culture and belief of the Country and subscribing to the aims and objectives of the party's subject to his/her subscribing the aims and objectives of the party and to the rules and regulations hereafter.

While I acknowledge that the same website does claim that the group has since broken up - with the split supposedly occurring over the controversy of alleged forced conversions of Hindus to Christianity, the article on Wikipedia does not seem to differentiate between the NLFT that is secular and the break away group that supposedly is trying to create a Christian theocracy and force Hindus to convert to Christianity.

Indeed, this claim seems, to an extent, to trace back to a BBC article from 2002 which claimed the manifesto of the NLFT calls for the establishment of a Christian theocracy when no such claim in their manifesto exists - which is linked to above for anyone to confirm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.57.164.160 (talk) 04:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Timothy McVeigh

Any article covering Christanic terrorism should include some of the most notable acts of Christian terrorism such as Timothy McVeigh's mass murdering and the Bush regime's invasion of Iraq.

Also the Klu Klux Klan, Christian Identity, National Vanguard, Save Our State, Vational Alliance, Aryan Nations et al. are all Christian organizations, membership is exclusively Christian and the ideologies of hate and bigotry are perfectly in accord to Christanity. Removing references to acts of Christanic terrorism while demanding "that's not Christianity" is why these Christianic terrorists get away with committing their crimes against us.

Christians pointing at other Christians routinely applaud and defend each other, right up until the mass murder committed in the name of the Christian gods, after which most Christians start demanding, "They weren't Christians."

Any honest article on Christanic terrorism must include the history of Christanic terrorism without religious cultists pointing at each other and denying what their death cult stands for, historically as well as in contemporary times.

Fredric Rice (talk) 17:11, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Christian Terrorist Issues

there are several inherent issues with the term christian terrorists. these issues stem from the issues with the definitions of both the word Christian and terrorism. Most terrorists, especially modern Christian ones, hold beliefs outside the mainstream, so that many that oppose them don't consider them Christians. Of course another issue is the difference between terrorists that are christian, and christian terrorists. Also, since religious terrorists these days rarely attack just because of religious reasons, it complicates things. as for issues with defining terrorism read terrorism anyway, I think these issues should be addressed by adding more information, like noting the mainstream reaction of Christians to the beliefs and their extremity. I think any terrorist group which identifies it self with as explicitly religious and Christian, should be considered a Christian terrorist group. 67.176.160.47 (talk) 23:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

India a growing problem

Currently Christanic terrorism in India and Uganda has become an even worse problem and yet this Wikipedia article does not even mention what's historically taken place in India in regards to Christanic terrorism, nor does the article cover what's happening in contemporary times.

• http://www.stephen-knapp.com/christian_terrorism_in_northeast_india.htm
• http://hinduworld.tripod.com/views/nscn.html
• http://www.christianaggression.org/item_display.php?type=ARTICLES&id=1194586172

If you look at the historic British activities in India, extensive Christanic terrorism was committed against the people prior to and then under British rule. Christanic terrorism is re-emergent in India with combative Christianic factions committing terrorist acts against each other in addition to committing terrorist acts against the people of India.

Once again we find that this Wikipedia article is woefully incomplete, a state of affairs that results from Christians unwilling to accept and admit that their cult even commits terrorism. Fredric Rice (talk) 18:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)