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)

I agree that groups relating to the Northern Irish troubles (PIRA, CIRA, RIRA, OIRA, INLA, UVF, UFF, UDA, etc.) should be removed, as the root of the conflict is based on secular political goals and ethnic division. Although the ethnic and political divisions are casually identified based on the religions of each community, the disagreement between these paramilitaries is not rooted in religious doctrine. The difference is based on the fact that the Irish of Ulster before plantation had not been converted from Catholicism during the Tudor dynasty, while Scottish and English migrants to Ulster who arrived later during the plantation of Ulster had already been converted. Therefore the religious divisions were useful in identifying whose ancestors had been displaced during plantation and whose had done the displacing, thereby signaling one's political relationship with Britain in accordance with land interests. The divergent aims of Republican and Loyalist paramilitaries were concretely secular; they were paramilitaries who (generally) happened to be Christian.

I also agree that the reference to hunger strike should be removed as 'evidence' of a Republican religious motive. The act may have appealed to the concept of martyrdom but the practice is entirely rooted in the Gaelic traditions of Brehon law which is in accordance with the Republican value for Irish nationalism. Kilkeel (talk) 02:14, 2 November 2010 (UTC)Kilkeel

Christanic Terrorism in Iraq

not a WP:FORUM + WP:NOTSOAPBOX
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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) Fredric Rice, sounds like you have been sold an awful lot of lies, and you seriously want to believe them. "Death-centric cult"? Do you even know a Christian? Have you so much as read the Bible? If not, you might be interested in this passage: "But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. Give to anyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. Do to others as you would have them do to you...Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful." Luke 6:27-31, 36. There are many, many more verses commanding Christians to always show kindness, even to people who despise them. Nothing remotely close to ordering death to those who do not convert. You claim mass killings and rape of Iraqis committed by Christians, but can you name even one incident? On the other hand, I can name off the top of my head quite a few terrorist acts perpetrated my Islamists, mostly against Christians. The following are some examples: 1. America, September 11, 2001 (death toll: nearly three thousand) 2. In Alexandria, Egypt, twenty-three parishoners are incinerated by a Shahid suicide bomb attack on New Year's Eve during church mass. Seventy-seven are injured. 3. On December 30, 2010 in Helmand, Afghanistan, the Taliban bomb a minibus packed with civilians, taking down at least fourteen. 4. On Christmas day 2010 in Bejaur, Pakistan, forty-seven people lined up for emergency food were blown into bits by a female suicide bomber. Children are among the dead. 5. December 24, 2010, at least eighty-six Christians were killed in a series of Islamic attacks, mostly targeting Christmas Eve services. Located in Jos, Nigeria. Seventy-four injured. I could continue on listing them, but I won't. There have been over sixteen thousand Islamic terrorist attacks since the 9/11. That is a fact, though there are many who will go to great lengths to deny it all and find some way to point the finger at Christians and Israel. You seem to be one of them. Futhermore, American military forces are not there in the name of this religion, but I'm not going to get into this as another commentor already did so. You know, you go on and on about these alleged "atrocities", but never in any substantial detail. You seem to think that the evil Christian Americans just love tearing up the Middle East, killing Iraqis, and inflicting misery on human beings. I usually try to be polite to people when talking via internet, or just in general, but your claims really make me angry. Get a reality check. You think these soldiers enjoy being thousands of mile away from their friends and families, living in such uncomfortable living conditions, and not knowing for certain if they will live to see another day? Let me tell you, I have been to a Navy ship. Sleeping quarters are cramped and the food is not the best in the world, but these people are willing to sacrifice their comfort in order to protect their country. I hope you rethink what you have said, but there are just some folks who are so grounded in their own oppinions that they will never even consider admitting that they might be wrong. --69.128.204.110 (talk) 03:59, 14 January 2011 (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)

According to the link given(http://tripurasociety.org/religion.htm), the Tripura are Hindus, not Christians; the only reference to Christianity in the article is that one of their symbols resembles a Christian cross. What's going on here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whitelaughter (talk • contribs) 07:37, 14 November 2010 (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)

Christian terrorism - India

Christian terrorism - Uganda.

If you think any of this information should be in the article then it is your job to add it. Josh Keen (talk) 19:10, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The content listed above does not come from any legitimate sources but a special interest group. Converting people at gunpoint, or any terrorist action is clearly rejected by Christianity. If there is a group converting people by gunpoint they have strayed from the faith and are considered by the church at large as apostate. If the articles are true, this is being perpetrated by a cult group that has no place in the Christian church. This is on par with people starting a war in the name of Ghandi. ----providenceavenue

Hutaree

If the Hutaree nine are convicted of the charges against them, then I would say that they deserve an entry in the United States section for conspiring to murder law enforcement officials with IED's. However, in the spirit of WP:Crystal, not to mention presumption of innocence, I've reverted their addition for now. Groupthink (talk) 00:55, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

They have been charged with a serious crime and it is thus notable. Check out their website to confirm their motives. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.165.141.198 (talk) 05:05, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Where is their website? Let me check it myself. Alexius08 (talk) 05:07, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Of course it's notable, but shouldn't we wait until these people are found (or plead) guilty to include this? Groupthink (talk) 09:01, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

The formatting is terrible but nonetheless: http://hutaree.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.165.141.198 (talk) 05:12, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

If their website were well-designed and they said they were totally nonviolent and they talked only about caring for abandoned small animals, would we take them at their word? Meanwhile, there has been WP:RS discussion of the FBI informant in their midst who heavily coached them (they couldn't even put together a pipe bomb without lots of help). They would not have amounted to anything without government assistance. The deliberate creation of enemies by a government is an interesting topic, but the fruits of that process shouldn't be presented as 'evidence' without noting the circumstances (WP:NPOV). I removed it but I'd say it's okay to recreate it if the controversy is noted.Jeremystalked _{T C} 17:05, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Although I can understand the argument that, if there were some sort of entrapment, the accusation might be unfair, that would not make it not notable. Events can be and are notable even if Wikipedia editors find them objectionable. Therefore, I'm going to restore the deleted passage. However, per NPOV, I think it's a good point that the controversy needs to be noted, so I'll do that too. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:21, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Thats a rather flimsy fringe view my freind. Weaponbb7 (talk) 22:22, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

??? --Tryptofish (talk) 16:03, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Removed material

In 2010, a group called Repent Amarillo has terrorized Amarillo, Texas, targeting groups they say do not match their definition of morality. When a community theater attempted to open "Bent", a play about the persecution of homosexuals during Nazi Germany, Repent members complained to fire marshals and helped shut down the play, the day before opening night. On New Years eve, they began harassing a discreet club of swingers they discovered in town, blaring Christian music at the swingers’ club building. The swingers were then videotaped at every following visit to the club. Repent also obtained the swingers’ license plates and dug through their trash, informing neighbors and coworkers of what was once private. Repent Amarillo's website contains a page linked to as "Warfare Map", which highlights nearly 40 businesses around Amarillo each of which they consider a "Sexually Oriented Business, Occult Witchcraft, Idol Worship, or Compromised Church's [sic]".

Primary source and a Dubious source at best, i would think if this group had done what was alleged here there I would have heard something about it. Weaponbb7 (talk) 14:36, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Google show no reliable sources, just a blog and a op-ed. i take that back one local source mention but again i would say : A. Group has not done any acts of terror or been indicted. B. it is a local fringe group, does not seem notable enough to be included with groups like the Hutaree and KKK and what not Weaponbb7 (talk) 14:47, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I searched too, with similar results, although there do seem to be a lot of non-local op-eds as well. Seems like a lot of talk about it, but not taken up by independent secondary sources. I wonder whether it might be appropriate to include a brief mention, but not going on at UNDUE length? I'd like to see some more talk about this before making a decision. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:36, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I saw alot of like Blogs more than op-eds; To me why include this small group who as far as i can tell have no violence what so ever (as far as i have read). It seems like to me some one didnt like these guys and stuck them here, When really from the looks of them their a wanna be Westboro than terrorist. I could pest an formal RFC or request for comments at the WIkiprojects involved? but to me doing so seems like a easte of time as it seems like WP:DUCK of someone with a grudge post this here. Weaponbb7 (talk) 19:47, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I'm saying let's continue to leave it out while waiting to see what anyone else might say. This doesn't rise to the level of an RfC, not by a long shot. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:58, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh i see; i agree Weaponbb7 (talk) 20:07, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Good, sorry I wasn't clearer about that to begin with. :-) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:10, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

The removal of the link to cause stalking / terrorist stalking / political stalking

Terrorist stalking by (christian) anti-abortionists is verifiable[5] and is sometimes called cause stalking[6]. The only question, perhaps, is: would a link to cause stalking be appropriate (because the article is currently being reviewed for deletion) or should you just link to terrorist stalking?Jeremystalked _{T C} 17:15, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

If it was an article I would support. Your trying to link it to a single sentence in the larger article of Stalker Weaponbb7 (talk) 22:19, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Historical

According to the definition given at the beginning of this article, it occurs to me that there is room to include the Crusades in this article. Any thoughts? Joe407 (talk) 18:24, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it's hard to equate state military actions with terrorism. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:24, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

This Article is illegitimate and should be removed

Terrorist activities of any kind have absolutely no place in the new testament of the Bible. The problem with this article is the word "Christian" which denotes someone who follows the life and teachings of Jesus Christ and the apostles of the new testament. This makes any acts of terrorism an illegitimate expression of Christianity, if one were to engage in these acts they would be apostate. There is not one legitimate form of Christianity worldwide that would embrace or tolerate this practice.

The groups that perpetrate these actions are cults and while they might use the name of Jesus, they are not following his life and teachings. Individual people who, for instance, hear teaching on the abortion agenda and go out and threaten or kill abortionists also have strayed away from the life and teachings of Jesus Christ. There is nothing "Christian" about these actions.

If someone in the US Army flew off the handle and started murdering innocent people, this would not be considered a legitimate action of the US Army. This person would have completely left their position in the Army to do such a thing, the Army would never have condoned it. Even if they had orders and just twisted the meaning to say it meant to kill innocent people, that is totally unacceptable. But if this happened should we write an article called US ARMY Terrorism? Absolutely not, the US Army did not institute this or have anything to do with it.

I would ask the MODERATOR to consider one of a few options to clear this up

1. Merge this article with any other article on Wikipedia that discusses terrorism perpetrated by cult groups, and rename it CULT TERRORISM. None of the groups listed are legitimate Christian groups or are recognized as legitimate by the Church at all.

2. Remove the article completely. It's poorly written and misleading. If any of the actual factual information needs a home it should find it with other cult terrorist articles on Wikipedia.

3. Rewrite the intro paragraph so it is clear that terrorism is completely incompatible with and has no basis in new testament Christianity. Also mention in short all of the groups mentioned are cult groups and are not considered legitimate or are embraced at all to the major expressions of Christianity worldwide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Providenceavenue (talk • contribs) 16:01, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

There are terrorism articles for most religions. Whether Christian terrorists or extremists are actually christian is too controversial a question to answer on Wikipedia, the important thing is that they did what they did while professing to do it for christianity. The official requirements of being in a religion is down to whether you profess to be or not, not if you follow their morality. If we start sectioning off terrorists acting under the name of christianity as not truly Christian then we could also argue that, say, Catholics or Protestants aren't truly christian. Deftera (talk) 16:18, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I see your point but it creates a serious problem not just in this context but in the writing philosophy of Wikipedia as a whole. Please go look at pages for other religions and sects. Wikipedia is able to describe and distinguish characteristics, practices, and beliefs of religions. For example at the beginning of the "Jehovah's Witness" article on Wikipedia, in the first sentence it makes a statement of distinction in beliefs from mainstream Christianity. It goes on to describe the beliefs and practices of that religion.

To someone with no understanding of Christianity, to read this article would educate them that this is a legitimate expression of Christianity and it's not. That is not clear in this article. At this point the article fails to do what it's supposed to do and ends up being indoctrinating a false understanding of Christianity. I found this article because someone posted a link in a news article discussion about a Christian organization and tried to use this page as a reference point for mainstream Christianity. This article is already being used to misrepresent the church, if you agree this is not the intended purpose of the article then something must be done to clarify this point. The article is about cult groups and fanatics that are apostate.

In this article we have 2 major problems

1. The name of the article. Terrorism is not Christian practice as described by Wikipedia. Are these descriptions of actions that are legitimate Christian practice? The answer is NO. Could it then be entitled instead, "Terrorism by people/groups who are Christian" ? NO, because mainstream Christianity clearly rejects this practice.

Cult Terrorism is a much better title. Even while these groups could use the name of Jesus or call themselves Christian, their beliefs and practices are so radically different than mainstream Christianity and it's Denominations, that it clearly fits the description of cult activity.

2. The article needs a clear distinction cited that these groups and individuals actions are not legitimate expressions of Christianity and are not accepted by mainstream Christianity.

---

providenceavenue

There's a difference between different denominations of a religion and religious terrorism. Wikipedia tries to stay away from promoting any viewpoints, especially theological ones, and adhere to a neutral point of view. While morally it may not be true, these terrorists are Christians by the technical definition of the term (they believe in Jesus Christ and the Trinity, etc.) so Wikipedia has to report that. As I said before, if we start saying that certain groups aren't christian then where do we draw the line? We could say then that Fred Phelps isn't a christian, and then the American Family Association and other homophobic groups, then maybe even the Vatican; it just goes on and on. Also these groups may not meet the official definition of cult, so labelling them as one would be against Wikipedia policy. Deftera (talk) 18:43, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

(Oh, and to sign your name at the end of a talk page post just type a space then four tildes (~))

Also, the way that Wikipedia works, we do not remove content because someone doesn't like it. We decide these things based on what secondary sources say about it. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:52, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

The article doesnt have to be here because there are such article for other religions. The context for the page is as such that the NSCN-IM explicitly states what it wants to found. so do the South Moluccan (although that is poorly sourced on wikipedia). as does the militia in MI some months ago.Lihaas (talk) 20:14, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Rudolph

Another editor and I have been disagreeing about whether Eric Rudolph should be included on the page. I very much appreciate the importance of WP:BLP. I also realize now, on looking more carefully at the sources, that I made an error in an edit summary, where I attributed the Christian terrorist connection to the FBI announcement, which in fact does not address that. However, a citation to CNN that was deleted along with the FBI citation does explicitly discuss this relationship. I would suggest restoring the material with that sourcing. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:49, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

the CNN source says his MOTHER was involved in these groups, and brought him along years before; it also says Rudolph denies any religious connection. No one has ever shown him active in these groups--although lots of people assumed it before he was captured and testified. Rjensen (talk) 21:56, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Actually, the CNN source begins by emphasizing his mother's connections, but then goes on to present Rudolph himself as buying into the beliefs of the sect, although they do not give examples from his adulthood. I don't see anywhere where that source says that he denied religious connections. I looked at the source cited on his bio page (from the Decatur Daily) to support the statement that he denied religious motivations, and the source itself actually gives a much more ambiguous picture. It says near the end that he said that he only associated with the sect in order to date a women who attended, and that he considers himself a Catholic. It also says at the beginning that he "issued a statement laced with Bible verses to justify bombs...", which hardly fits with a complete absence of religious motivations. Thus, the Decatur Daily does not really contradict CNN, and a plain reading of the CNN report is that CNN, a reliable secondary source, considers the Christianity link to be notable. I can understand the arguments that CNN may be making a sort of SYNTH, but our obligation is verifiability, not truth, and there is no SYNTH on our part to cite the source. What is verifiable is that reliable secondary sources consider part of his motivations to be religious. As for BLP, claiming that he had religious interests is hardly defamatory, given his own conflicting self-descriptions, and compared to all the other things that are not under dispute. I've already indicated that I'm open to including mention of his partial denial. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:23, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

CNN is a daily news source with a deadline every hour -- it does not pretend to be an in-depth resource. That makes it of marginal value compared to a serious RS like a scholarly book. Here's the major book on the subject--the one cited in the article--it does not mention religion: "Like McVeigh, Rudolph was not himself a white supremacist, but he shared the beliefs and positions of that movement in this instance on issues such as legalized abortion and hatred of global institutions like the Olympic Games that, to Rudolph's mind, promoted the "despicable ideals of global socialism." Hoffman, Inside Terrorism p 138. The CNN headline makes the point he was not connected to any group: "Eric Robert Rudolph: Loner and survivalist Bombing suspect had few ties to society". In his official statement to prosecutors: "Rudolph conceded that for six months in 1984 he attended a church that preached racial separation, but he said he only went because he was dating a woman who went there.... He insisted that he did not buy into the racist ideas preached by the separatist church that he briefly attended. [he said] 'Racial determinism is a day before yesterday idea.'" --that is an explicit denial of a religious motivation(AP report) He also said he had always been a Catholic (the religious sects involved are all Protestant). Rjensen (talk) 23:29, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Although I don't have the Hoffman book, what you quote simply says that he was not a supremacist, without speaking to religious motivations. Someone can be a loner, and even dislike the groups, while still sharing their ideology. What you say after that is just restating what I said, with different emphases, and racial determinism certainly does not equal Christianity. I don't think that you really refuted what I said. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:58, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

before he was captured and gave out his statement there was a lot of speculation about his religion because his mother indeed did have the connections. He insists that he never did --and was always a Catholic --and given the very strict BLP rules, the speculation without solid evidence is not allowed in Wikipedia.Rjensen (talk) 00:02, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I've read BLP, believe me. But there is clear sourcing that he issued a statement filled with Biblical quotations, and he stated that he was Catholic. Just because he wasn't a card-carrying member of those groups doesn't mean he doesn't fit here. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:08, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

quoting the Old Testament perhaps makes him a Jewish terrorist. The link is to a Protestant extremist group his mother was connected to, and people assumed he was a member too, but there is no proof and he denied it. His motivation according to his statements was political--he attacked the Olympics because it was international/unamerican. Rjensen (talk) 00:11, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

A Jewish terrorist who self-describes as Catholic? I think not. His statements included much Biblical content, not just secular political content. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:16, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

The article is about Christian terrorism. Unless there is some proof of Christian motives, then Rudolph should be omitted. Likewise, some of the others in the article should be dropped, because they have very little to do with Christianity. Roger (talk) 03:55, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

You need a source that calls him a "Christian terrorist". However I think most sources call him a "right-wing terrorist".[7] TFD (talk) 13:34, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I've been looking into sources, which of course is the useful way to go. I'm still reading about this, but Jessica Stern, on page 161 of Terror in the Name of God (a book that ought to be useful generally for helping to evaluate what does or does not belong on this page), talks about Rudolph as being "one of the movement's major heroes", referring to a meeting of Christian extremists, so a more nuanced understanding of the sources may well turn out to be that he is an inspiration amongst Christian terrorist groups that he, himself, does not want to be associated with. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:13, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

About AfDs

I wonder whether there is sufficient literature about this topic to warrant an article. The source used for the lead for example never mentions "Christian terrorism" and I can only find passing references to the term. "Religious extremist terrorism" is of course a valid category supported by writers on terrorism[8] but I do not see that any of these writers break these groups down by religion. Can anyone point to a source that defines and discusses this topic? TFD (talk) 22:08, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Four Deuces. The History section is also poorly handled--the wars and massacres between Christian groups are very well covered in Wiki. The Huguenot example involved Catholic vs Protestant as did many wars in Europe in the 1550-1650 era. Rjensen (talk) 22:20, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I suggest looking at the AfD discussion of just a few months ago, linked above. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:24, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I was confused by the AfD combining Islamic terrorism. The combination of articles may have influenced the result because there are numerous terrorist groups that claim to be motivated by Islam and are classified as religious terrorists, while most Christian terrorist groups would probably be classified as right-wing terrorists. In any case, a "keep" at AfD does not mean an article is perfect and we need sources to support the article. What is a Christian terrorist? Who is a Christian terrorist? If the article cannot answer these questions them it is unacceptable. It may be that these sources exist, and have not been supplied. TFD (talk) 23:04, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

The NSCN-IM explicitly states what it wants to found. one can read the RS sourced textLihaas (talk) 20:12, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

sources

for controversial claims, or really anything thats been challenged per WP:BRD, needs to be addressed. if the sources exist they should cited here as asked. Please cite them if they exist becasue the allegation seems dubiousLihaas (talk) 16:27, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The lead is sourced to Inside terrorism.[9] However it seems to be an obscure topic and most of the naterial in the article is original research.[10] TFD (talk) 16:59, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

TFD, I think that Lihaas was referring, specifically, to this: [11], not to the page in general. My thinking in that series of edits was that there are links to other pages where, I think, the sourcing is present. But I think now that Lihaas' request is fair enough, and I'll look to add those sources inline when and if I add those words back. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:23, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Cool, and then feel free to add RS cited content.Lihaas (talk) 04:36, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

The addition back is okay, ive not problem with is, but can we cite who alleges the case of it being "antisemitic" and "fascist" obviosuly hthe 2 are loaded words and defined by different people in various ways.(Lihaas (talk) 15:38, 30 December 2010 (UTC)).

Done, I think. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:37, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Some recent edits

About this and this, it seems to me that, for one thing, it's a contradiction to talk about "terrorist militias". Of course, as stated in the first edit summary, "terrorist militias" whatever they are "are no way organized", but are they really militias if they are "no way organized"? I'm not objecting to calling them terrorists, but to claiming that there is such a thing as "terrorist militias". Also, please look carefully at those edits: they also have the effect of reverting edits I made to the section, unrelated, about Timoty McVeigh, which, without explanation, appears simply to be an erroneous removal of sourced information, as now agreed to by a third editor. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:33, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Again, I note that there have been some further conflicting edits. I'd like to encourage everyone involved to discuss it here. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:32, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

See also: #Lebanon section: removed, below. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Indonesia examples - removed

I've removed the Indonesia examples because they are pretty weak and in my mind don't have anything but a weak association to the title of this article.

First,

The Holland-based Republik Maluku Selatan sought to create an independent South Moluccas out of a part of Indonesia that was culturally different from the Muslim majority country."

This was a movement, so at the very least it should be made clear that the events were primarily decades ago. In addition, many past supporters of separatism were Muslims while most Christians today do not support it; support crossed religious lines then and now. Also, if the article itself (on Republik Maluku Selatan) doesn't have information on how there was a Christian religious motivation for violence or terrorism or how it was primarily Christians involved against other religions, and we can't be bothered to describe the connection in this article here, it belongs on the talk page for now, especially without a source.

Second,

"Likewise the Free Papua Movement seeks an independent Republic of West Papua because of cultural dissimilarities with Indonesia."

Is this even a Christian organization? Christian isn't even mentioned in the article. Again, nothing about being inspired against other religions, or by the bible. And no source either. Ufwuct (talk) 20:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• I think I agree with the removal. I personally don't know anything about it, but I followed the internal links to those movements, and I don't see anything about religion on our pages about them. Given the lack of sourcing, it's probably best to leave this deleted. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:03, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Lebanon section: removed

In 1982, Lebanese Christian fighter groups massacred hundreds of Palestinians in Sabra and Shatila refugee camps, during the administration of the Israeli defense minister Ariel Sharon.

The above was deleted by another editor. Given the amount of disagreement about this section, I'm moving it to talk pending further discussion. Please see also the talk thread #Some recent edits above. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• My opinion: Given that there is sourcing that it took place, the question is whether it falls within the subject matter of this page. If it was killing of Muslims by Christians in a manner that involved religious identity, I'd support restoring it to the page, but with some re-writing and better sourcing. Also, the relationship to the Israeli government appears to me to be irrelevant to this page. The sourcing already given just mentions it in passing as "Lebanese militiamen". Recent edit summaries by editors other than me have run the gamut from characterizing these as "terrorist militias" to "collateral damage". I hope we can put aside any POVs and find sourcing that can place this, perhaps, somewhere in between. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:11, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand what's wrong with this. The BBC is one of the most respected news organisations in the world, and their article clearly states "During the invasion, Lebanese Christian militiamen allied to Israel massacred hundreds of Palestinians in two refugee camps under Israeli control." --rpeh •T•C•E• 22:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I was just looking at Kataeb Party. I too think increasingly that the material, in some form, should be returned to the page. I'd be happier with sourcing that focuses on the massacre, rather than on Ariel Sharon's illness—the sentence you quote is one made in passing near the end. More broadly, I don't think the controversy over whether or not there was Israeli responsibility should be part of what we write here. Since the page is about Christian terrorism, we should focus on the actions of the Christian individuals. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

A better source: [12]. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:35, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Part of the recent edit warring was about whether or not to describe the militias as "terrorists". Thoughts? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:49, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I cannot understand why the section was attempted to be removed that too without any kind of information or agreement. I have restored that as there was no consensus. This article is all about terrorism whether of any religion we have to mention. It was clearly done on religious identity and it's apparent that Christian militias sided with Israel with gain strength in Lebanese Civil war and the massacre done at these 2 refugee camps is in no way hidden by anyone. That brutality should be included here. Hum Aliwalay (talk) 05:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Dear fellow editors, the massacre that occurred is in fact a massacre, no one can deny that. Yet a shadow still remains on whether it was the then Israeli Minister of Defence Ariel Sharon who masterminded it or if it was backed by Syrian intelligence (syrian troops inexplicably cleared the area days earlier). On the other hand one shadowy figure stands tall : Elie Hobeika who according to recent revelations by Robert Hatem _ a militiaman who witnessed the massacre_ , the Lebanese militias were duped by Hobeika who was implementing Syrian orders at the time and that Sharon gave explicit orders to avoid civilian casualties but his orders were disregarded by the militias' field commanders (yessss, i find it hard to believe myself). Whether it was Israel, Syria, Hobeika or the green martians monkeys who masterminded this massacre is not relevant, what i want to say is the carnage was not driven by religious animosity rather by political intrigue that tied the gruesome warring factions together. If one can still be objective on Wikipedia, this massacre should not be included in this article. Eli+ 17:43, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

On a second note, the massacre was not motivated neither by Christian scriptures, nor by Christain beliefs, this is a point that i failed to make clear earlier, thus this section must be removed i believe. I should stress again that the massacre was politically driven not to mention that the Palestinians and the Lebanese nationalists were in a state of war.Eli+ 18:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Question - Are there reliable sources that call them Christian terrorists or their actions Christian terrorism ? Sean.hoyland - talk 18:52, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I've been wondering about that same question. According to the BBC here [13], the violence was carried out by "Christian militiamen", and is described as "a three-day orgy of rape and slaughter that left hundreds, possibly thousands, of innocent civilians dead in what is considered the bloodiest single incident of the Arab-Israeli conflict." I think that, without WP:SYNTH, it is reasonable to consider this to be violence equivalent to terrorism (and, thus, potentially within the scope of this page), carried out by Christians. But, per WP:LABEL, I'd rather use a direct quote from a source such as this, instead of calling them something like "terrorist militias" or "terrorist fighters", as has happened in some earlier revisions by me and others. Then, the question becomes whether the motivation was in some way Christianity-related. Looking at Sabra and Shatila massacre and Kataeb Party, it seems to me that the perpetrators had a very clear identity as Maronite Christians, while the immediate motivations for their violence against Muslim Palestinians, in reaction to the assassination of Bachir Gemayel, are ambiguous with respect to religion (see also: Sabra and Shatila massacre#Opinions on Hobeika's responsibility). On balance, I think it's reasonable to have a carefully worded treatment of it here, which we probably don't have with the version on the page now. And, as I said earlier, I think that it is way off-topic to include direct mention of the (Jewish) Israeli government, although we should probably include a "main article" link to Sabra and Shatila massacre, where that aspect is examined in detail. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:24, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that without sensible sources that label the militiamen as terrorists or the acts as terrorism or report someone else applying those labels that we could attribute the statements to, it's not possible to even consider including it. These 'X terrorism' articles with their label/point-of-view-based titles are inherently problematic but if we are going to have them I think we are obliged to employ strict inclusion criteria. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:59, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

• Notice. It just occurred to me that all editors involved with this section of the page need to be aware of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#General 1RR restriction, which, I think, clearly applies here (but not to the rest of this page). Ignore it at your own risk! Going forward, I may report any edit warring to WP:AE. Thanks in advance for cooperating. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:09, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - (I was invited to comment here by Elie plus, whom I have worked with in the past on articles in the Lebanon topic area.) Does this article include terrorist activities performed by Christians, or terrorist activities performed because the perpetrator was Christian? That seems to be an issue for almost every event described in this article, and something which should be addressed on a broader scale (including articles on Muslim and Jewish terrorism as well). My personal belief is that all three articles should only include terrorist attacks performed because of the perpetrators religion, which needs to be established for this event. Second, I somewhat agree with Tryptofish - if reliable sources describe the attack as a "terrorist" attack, then it can be included. Not all massacres are terrorist attacks, and to include it here without a reliable source describing it as a terrorist attack would violate WP:SYNTH. ← George ^talk 22:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

• Looking at sources. I've been looking at sources, with a view to trying to address the issues discussed above. Let's start by looking at the sources cited now on the page, which appear to me to have been copied here from another page. There are four:

1. The first is a BBC report on Ariel Sharon going home from a hospital: [14]. As I have said above, I do not consider it a useful source, because it only mentions the massacre in passing, at the end. In contrast, I suggest above that we instead use this BBC report: [15]. It identifies the persons committing the massacre as "Christian militiamen", and it describes the event as "a three-day orgy of rape and slaughter that left hundreds, possibly thousands, of innocent civilians dead in what is considered the bloodiest single incident of the Arab-Israeli conflict."
2. The second is a transcript of a longer BBC report: [16]. It's a very detailed (and unpleasant) read. It includes descriptions of things like all the perpetrators wearing crucifixes and such, and the BBC reporter refers to "the Phalangist terror".
3. The third simply says "Harbo, 1982", and should be deleted unless we can identify what it is.
4. The fourth is a United Nations resolution, but is a dead link. I found the correct link to that resolution here: [17]. It says that the General Assembly "Resolves that the massacre was an act of genocide."

I think that, if we source it with these improvements, we are justified in saying that there was, at least, an ethnically Christian character of this incident, but not a theological or doctrinal one. Are we justified in considering it terrorism? It's worth looking at Definitions of terrorism, which in my reading only tells us that the term is a difficult one to define. I've Googled "difference between terrorism and genocide", which mostly returns Wikipedia mirrors, but does give a conference outline from Yale: [18], which seems to indicate that scholars consider genocide and terrorism to be overlapping concepts, with a poorly-defined border between them. (I'm just pointing that out to help us evaluate how to cite the U.N. resolution, not that we need to cite the Yale document on the page.)

In my opinion, this is enough to justify including the material on this page, but it needs to be rewritten. It should focus only on what the Christian Phalangists did, and omit what the Jewish Israelis did (but link to Sabra and Shatila massacre using Template:Main at the top of the section). It should refrain from using the word terrorist, per WP:LABEL, but instead quote directly from the U.N. and some of the BBC; we need to discuss what to quote. It seems to me that to claim that it is genocide and a massacre, but not terrorism, fails common sense, and it is not a problem with respect to WP:SYNTH to include the massacre on this page. At least that's a general outline of what I think we should do. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

• Another source: here is an article by Noam Chomsky, in which he explicitly refers to the massacre as "terrorism": [19], so we could perhaps attribute it to him. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:27, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

(About my reasoning for the POV tag, aside from the general issues discussed here, I think the current wording is POV with respect to including Sharon (not Christian and not relevant), and in using excess adjectives like "brutal" in the sentence about genocide. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:37, 13 January 2011 (UTC))

Comment. I believe this section should be restored into the article. There are enough reliable source for it and there isn't any disagreement about the incident itself, just there might be disagreement about details.--Aliwiki (talk) 01:53, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Dear Tryptofish - I appreciate your efforts put in to make the section in particular and entire article in general better. Nevertheless please note that your reasoning for reinstating the POV tags do not apply here. Neutrality is targeted when the section reflects viewpoint of an unreliable sources. We have multiple references cited there, perhaps you may not categorize BBC as neutral one however UN references and other has been included as well. Secondly you raised concerns over involvement of Sharon and his religion. It does not matter whether Sharon is Christian or Jewish. Its argued that the separatists of Punjab Khalistan movement were funded by Pakistan though adhering to different religion. At the time of massacre Christians killed Palestinians because they were Muslims and Sharon backed it because they were Palestinians so that reflects the common enemy perspective for both. I hope you understood. Thanks. - Hum Aliwalay (talk) 05:49, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I think it's you who does not understand. I'll let things sit for a few days, and give other editors a chance to comment, but I think you misunderstand both what I said directly above about POV and about sources. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:54, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I can't understand from which angle you accuse me of not understanding however you advocate POV for two reasons first the wording of Sharon [Not Christian Not Relevant] and then use of word 'brutal'. The usage of those wording is factual and denotes Sharon as the supporter of Christian perpetrators of that genocide, off-course if you want to rephrase the sentence by removing the word brutal I have o problem. But since we have an option to remove the word without hampering the meaning of the sentence its better to do so rather than tagging POV. Thanks.Hum Aliwalay (talk) 05:06, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I've made an edit to source the material as above. I think it takes into account the comments made in this talk, and I hope it's an improvement. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:53, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

What the hell does "ethnically maronite Christians" mean???? + South Lebanon Army was not comprised solely of Christians, it was dominated by Shia especially in it's later years. If you don't know what you are talking about then don't. I am removing the reference to ethnicity cos it makes no sense. Eli+ 22:27, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Please note the subsequent edits I made, and please read WP:CIVIL while you are at it. This page is called Christian terrorism, so we need to make clear the connection to Christianity. We can remove the mention of the South Lebanon Army that you added. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:35, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

About your further revert, please note that there is (was) sourcing that the militias were Maronites. This is a page about Christian terrorism. And adding the (Jewish) Israeli forces is inappropriate, not because it isn't verifiable, but because it isn't relevant to this page. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:40, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

And I also want to note this earlier edit summary: [20], which suggests editing from a position other than NPOV. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:01, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

First of all there is no where found that the massacre was carried out by those Christians who were associated with South Lebanon Army rather it was done by Phalangists, also nowhere its found that SLA had Shia members in it. I shall be removing SLA as there is no citation to support its inclusion. Stop distorting article. Tryptofish's efforts to improve the section is appreciated - Hum Aliwalay (talk) 05:34, 18 January 2011 (UTC)