Talk:Christian terrorism/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Talk archives for Christian terrorism (current talk page)
<< 1          Archive 1 Archive 2 > 4 >>

Contents

iraq

im certainly no fan of the iraq invasion, but the reference to it here is just silly. they're letting muslims running politics, the army and the police force for god's sake! and even if every single one of the the tales of "non-combatant fatalities" were all completely true, it still wouldn't come close to amounting to "christian terrorism". if you're going to cite this as christian terrorism, you can cite pretty much any military campaign any western country has ever fought against any non-christian force. which would make this article rather meaningless. --Jamieli 19:57, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. I left that there when I overhauled the article simply because I wanted to get the important changes in _first_, without stirring up too much of a flamewar. jdb ❋ (talk) 22:32, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
@ Jamieli; This campaign differs from pretty much any military campaign etc., in that the "habit" of armies from western countries killing off muslims for kicks pretty much died off after the last crusades. Unless, of course, you have a couple of examples to prove me wrong, I put this bit back.
Another issue is the fact that no western country has had anything resembling the nigh fundamentalist rule of the USA for several hundred years - and even if you claim that the US does not have a fundamentalist rule, it cannot be disputed the current administration's close ties to the more zealous forces in the country.
As for the argument that they are letting muslims run the politics, army and police force - which planet have you been on lately? I mean not to be uncivil, but you have got me baffled. The only army in Iraq is the American one, slightly spiced with a few brits and other outlanders. None of these are muslims, or in any way controlled by them. The second largest armed force is the massive amounts of mercenaries, or "security advisors", if you will - this force actually outnumber both the British and all other non-US forces combined. Then follows the police force, which is controlled by an (effectively) puppet-government, strongly backed by the US - this effectively removes control of both politics, military and police from muslims. And your wording - "letting" the muslims run their own country - shows your own POV quite clearly. Is it the US's right to control somebody elses land, and is it these muslim's privilege to be allowed to control their own country?
The validity of the war has been demolished time and time again. As I already established, the Iraqi are ruling at the mercy of American guns, and thus have no real say on their own. Another factor is that the so-called election was a farcé, in that more than half the population refused to vote in what they percieved a pretend-election. As for other things, the US promised the Kurd faction in northern Iraq a homeland (which they have failed to recieve) if they would only help getting rid of Saddam Hussein.
All these things combined lead to a conclusion: This war, started with poor excuses, with a diffuse real reason that nobody can reliably point out, can not be compared to any other wars over the past 500 years. It bears close resemblance to the Christian wars of old, and... Well, all in all, prove me wrong on a couple of these points, and I'm sure we can reach a compromise. Until you do this, I am putting the removed bit back. As you might have noticed, my POV is pretty strong, so the short paragraph I now put back is already a compromise in my eyes.--TVPR 08:31, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Jamieli -- you see what I meant. That paragraph is a magnet for people with an ax to grind about the Iraq war. WP looks better if the article is reasonable with one dodgy paragraph. (Before, the whole article was pretty awful.) jdb ❋ (talk) 15:51, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Joseph Barialli, in most civilized countries and cultures, it is considered impolite, if not outright rude, to "talk above somebody's head" - that is to say, speak about someone present as if they were not even there. I do not know, nor do I care, where you come from, and if this is also the case in your home region, I just wish to point it out. In fact, most adult people in the civilized world would take grave offense from the sort of statement you just put forth, and in order to help you avoid any embarrasing incidents in the future because of this, I seek, with this response, to alleviate you of your ignorance on the subject. Now, if we could all put aside the nonsense, and rather discuss the actuality of the "dodgy paragraph" rather than hurl insults while trying to tailor the article to our own POV's, I, for one, would be much gratified. --TVPR 12:51, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, TVPR, I won't bite. I'm in no mood for a flamewar. jdb ❋ (talk) 21:36, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
yes, the current US administration includes many figures who are devoutly religious. It also includes others who are less so. As US governments go, it is quite a religious one. But there has been nothing concrete anywhere to suggest the Iraq war is anything close to a religiously motivated war, that the invasion was undertaken in order to "terrorise" the Iraqis into converting to Christianity. Many neo-cons in the Bush administration are indeed motivated by a ideology of "spreading democracy and freedom" but this has a negligible amount to do with Christianity and everything to do with a particularly warped version of patriotism. If you can call it Christian terrorism, like I said, using the same kind of incredibly tenuous links, you can call Hitler a "Christian terrorist". You could call American attacks on Japan "Christian terrorism". You could call any Cold War conflict "Christian terrorism." These US administrations were undoubtedly religious, and Hitler used a lot of Christian propaganda even if he probably wasn't particularly devout himself. Including all of this stuff would make this article totally meaningless. This should be reserved for acts of terrorism that are undoubtedly motivated by a Christian ideology, in which the group is hostile to those who do not share Christian beliefs. The Iraq war may be motivated by a particularly radical version of the democratic, liberal (!) Western ideology that has been built up over history by many devout Christians, but what you're suggesting is that US are invading Iraq because it's Muslim in an attempt to convert it to Christianity. Show me one piece of concrete evidence that proves this, and not just conspiracy theorizing, and I'll stand down.
The Iraqi security forces, both police and army, are open to applications from Muslims and non-Muslims alike. Fact. The current interim Iraqi government has many devout Muslims (it's certainly got very few Christians in it). Fact. Iraqis today are free to express themselves religiously, and Islamic parties are permitted to take part in Iraqi elections (turnout is immaterial). Fact. Same deal in Afghanistan. Fact. The US is friendly with many Muslim countries, including Pakistan and Turkey to both of whom they sell advanced arms. Fact. Muslims can and do enroll in the US army. Fact. So if they're trying to go on a Christian crusade, they're doing a completely awful job of it. Even if they were being "ruled under American guns", which I agree with to some extent, that's still got nothing to do with religion. And please....my language doesn't "show" anything - as I've said, I'm no fan of the invasion and the use of the word "let" is just fact, not an endorsement of said fact. I didn't delete that paragraph because I support the war, I deleted it because it's not Christian terrorism by any definition but the most pointlessly wide one. --Jamieli 16:42, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
having received no reply to this in 12 days, i'm removing the iraq paragraph again. TVPR, if you want it changed back, put a disputed tag and answer my above post. --Jamieli 12:14, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
My problem with the removal is that it does not state the invasion\war is terrorism with a Christian twist, it only points out how some people (arguably quite a few) thinks it is. But sure, why not?--TVPR 13:24, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

I added the NPOV-warning tag because this article, while raising some interesting and legitimate issues (about abortion clinic bombings, for instance, which are indisputably terrorist attacks committed (in some cases) by people who claim to be Christian), is written in a polemical style incompatible with the Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Worst example: "(George W Bush) has referred to the global "war on terrorism" as a crusade. Whilst one can argue that he did not, at the time, know sufficciently about the history of the crusades to know what he was actually declaring, some would say that such an argument would be severely misunderestimating his knowledge of the religion to which he belongs." It has some good ideas, but needs cleanup. jdb 05:43, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)


See my "Not objective?" post at the bottom. I will readily agree that I'm as biased as can be, but when I wrote the article, I tried as hard as possible to stay NPOV. The bit about Bush, if you check the history, is something I rewrote to be a defense for him, from what was before an all-out attack. I agree the Bushism (misunderestimating) might be out of place, but you cannot dispute the factuality of the article. As stated earlier, the "people who claim to be Christians" defense is equally valid for any other religious terrorism - as no major religion advocates war. I don't want to sound like I'm agressively defending what I wrote, but I get irate when someone argues that an article (which, when written on any "less popular" topic would be considered being too "mild") is NPOV because it has the nerve to criticize something most followers of it, here Christianity, refuse to akcnowledge even exists.--TVPR 07:56, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

TVPR wrote:
As stated earlier, the "people who claim to be Christians" defense is equally valid for any other religious terrorism - as no major religion advocates war. (emphasis added)
However, there seems to be substantial evidence to the contrary—for example, the early Crusades were fostered and organized in large part by the various Popes in Rome, who issued bulls that had full doctrinal status (to the RC faithful, at least).
Similarly, essentially all branches of modern Islam (including Sunni, Shi'ite, and Sufi, inter alia) continue to interpret the doctrine of jihad as encompassing warfare, so long as such warfare conforms to the bounds of conduct set forth in the Qur'an and Hadith.
In other words, perhaps it would be wise to reconsider assumptions about the relationship of the major world religions (including Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, inter alia) to religiously-sanctioned (or indeed, religiously-sponsored) warfare. Those of us who reside in societies with comparatively pacifist religious traditions (noting that such pacifist tendencies became mainstream perhaps only within the past 100 years) would do particularly well to reexamine such assumptions, lest we allow such assumptions to blind us to the very real differences found among the various human societies around the world. --Ryanaxp 16:51, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Terrorism is not compatible with Christianity and most people would agree that someone cannot be a terrorist and a Christian. This is not to say that some people who call themselves Christian might become terrorists, but that there is nothing 'Christian' about that terrorism, as Christianity advocates peace. (see Talk:Islamist terrorism).

Also, to describe President Bush's war on terrorism as terrorism itself is rather controversial - However much you think America's war on terror is a bad thing, it cannot be compared with what is conventionally understood by the term terrorism.--Cap 14:26, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

legitimate entry?

The term "crusade" is used often in the USA without connotation to "The Crusades" (note: different meanings through use of capital "C"). To include President Bush's one time use of the word to describe "Christian terrorism" and connect that to the founding of the USA is really stretching it. Do people really think that Bush meant the word with capital "C", refering back to his deep knowledge of Medieval History? I could see some meaning of the entry in connection with attacks on abortion clinics. That is, however, dealt with under "abortion." But the term lacks any sources and indication of general use, as a term, since there really is no specifically Christian terrorism. The Crusades are also defined elsewhere in the Wikipedia. I have never heard of a Christian religious leader calling for the specific use of murder or terrorism to further the cause of that church, at least not since the religious wars in Europe, hundreds of years ago.

        Unaware of the Balkans in the 1990s?

Even that would be debateable. Jesus, being the defining leader of a Christian church, was not an imperialist or a war lord. Putting the words "Christian" and "terrorism" together is like joining "flying" and "elephants".

I suggest the term "Christian terrorism" be eliminated. WhyerdWhyerd 14:18, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

What about the Lord's Resistance Army? That's definately a terrorist organization, and they claim to be Christians. Of course the majority of the world's Christians don't agree with it, but that's the same with Islamic terrorism.--Mixcoatl 13:33, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Not objective? Stay away.

Instead of repeating myself endlessly for every time in the future that someone comes around thinking this should be removed, I'll just say it here and be done with it:

Christian terrorism does exist. Any person claiming that Christianity and terrorism are incompatible, but agree that Islamic terrorism does exist, are per definition POV, and should keep away.

  • The Qu'ran explicitly forbids murder, and in times of war, explicitly forbids killing of civillians.
  • The Bible, particularly the Old Testament, is an orgy in blood and gore.

Looking at these two points alone, it's blatantly obvious which religion is more compatible with terrorism. I'm not trying to defend any terrorism with this statement, I'm merely pointing out that the argument "Christianity and terrorism does not mix" is no more true than "Islam and terrorism does not mix".

Moving on: If you've never heard of a Christian leader crying out for blood, I say this: Look to Northern Ireland. Catholics and protestants have been killing eachother for how many years now? And over what? Christianity.

This is an overly simplistic viewpoint of the Troubles in Northern Ireland. I suggest you research the Ulster Plantation, for example, to better understand the rather complicated and multifaceted issues of which ethnicity, language, social and economic class, and yes—even Christianity—each are heavily implicated. --Ryanaxp 05:09, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
Aye, but simplistic or not; it serves as an example that all believing Christians are not, indeed, peace-loving fluff-bunnies.--TVPR 21:50, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Sure, but then again, isn't that a bit of a straw man? I don't think anyone in this particular discussion has suggested otherwise. Moving further from this point, although I personally think this article should exist, I wouldn't immediately dismiss someone who thinks that it should be removed if a solid argument was made—there's room for principled disagreement, without need to assume bad faith or that everyone who feels this article should be merged or otherwise changed is necessarily promoting a Christian POV. —Ryanaxp 02:11, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

As for Christian organizations acting not nessecarily on behalf of the religion, but still advocating it, see the KKK. Protestant organization, and you can't say it's not a terrorist organization as well.

As for this article repeating details on violence against abortion clinics that has already been discussed in Abortion, I say this: It has also been repeated in Right-wing terrorism. Just like Adolf Hitler has been mentioned briefly under World War II, as well as under Nazism. Does that mean we've better remove his name from one of the articles? I think not. Be reasonable; relevant information must be included, or else there's no point in having an encyclopedia at all.

My final point is simple. Seeing as though there is a lot of religious terrorism all over the world - and seeing as most religions advocate peace - you cannot exclude christian terrorism from the party. It does exist, and is neither more nor less of an oxymoron than Islamic terrorism, Hindu terrorism, or Left-wing terrorism.

PS: The Crusades may or may not be counted as acts of terrorism - they were intended to "cleanse the holy land" from infidels and whatnot, just as much as spreading fear through the Islamic world, but where I would say they were military campaigns first and foremost, others might argue they were terrorist acts. This smust be pointed out in the article, that there are several takes on this view. --TVPR 10:05, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Good points. I would add that the Crusades were also acts of barbarism and greed on the part of the plunderer Crusaders. Even religious authorities, which were rather primitive, widely used the Crusades to expand power and riches. As the description of terrorism notes, it is essentially a late 20th century concept and applying such definitions to history is anachronistic and not responsible historical analysis.

--Noitall 23:11, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

List of terrorist countries

I deleted this list because all definitions of "terrorism" that I'm aware of define an act of terrorism as a non-governmental act. We wouldn't call a government believed to support Islamist terrorism a "terrorist government" or a "terrorist country." We would say it is a government believed to support terrorism, by which we generally mean the support of terrorist acts or terrorist groups. So a country supporting Christian terrorism would have to be one supporting, for example, the Provisional IRA, as that's one of the groups in the list. That would include Libya, which has admitted supporting PIRA, and it might include the U.S. through its financial support of Noraid, though that would have to be argued, not just stated, because Noraid would deny they send money to PIRA. Anyway, my point is that the issue is too complex for a "list of terrorist countries" to be an accurate way of describing the issue. Slim 01:39, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

Please see the definition on Wikipedia Terrorism
"violence against noncombatants for the purpose of achieving a political goal, on a scale smaller than full-scale warfare, also called low-intensity warfare or guerrilla tactics. Acts of terrorism can be perpetrated by individuals, groups, or states, as an alternative to an open declaration of war"
Zain 11:12, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The Wikipedia terrorist article isn't brilliant, so I wouldn't look there for a good definition. The best one I've found is a United Nations definition, as follows: [1]
"Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby - in contrast to assassination - the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and serve as message generators. Threat- and violence-based communication processes between terrorist (organization), (imperilled) victims, and main targets are used to manipulate the main target (audience(s)), turning it into a target of terror, a target of demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion, or propaganda is primarily sought" (Schmid, 1988).
The list of countries doesn't fit this definition. This whole article is not well-written, not properly considered. It needs a complete re-write, but at the very least, it shouldn't be made any worse by inserting a list of "terrorist countries," with no clear idea of what is meant. Slim 11:39, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
The single word that prevents your definition (which is not a "United Nations" definition, but merely one that one branch of the UN quotes) from applying to the American bombing of Iraq, which was intended to "shock and awe" Iraqis, is "clandestine". I note that Osama bin Laden has "declared war" on the United States, is not at all clandestine, and cannot by your definition be described as a "terrorist". Neither for that matter could many of Hamas, nor many of those who are often so described.
Might I note also, with my emphasis, that the very page you source quotes the UNGA resolution on this subject: "1. Strongly condemns all acts, methods and practices of terrorism as criminal and unjustifiable, wherever and by whomsoever committed;
2. Reiterates that criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other nature that may be invoked to justify them". (GA Res. 51/210 Measures to eliminate international terrorism).
You might also note the following from the UN's working group on terrorism. [2]

"While terrorist acts are usually perpetrated by subnational or transnational groups, terror has also been adopted by rulers at various times as an instrument of control. The rubric of counter-terrorism can be used to justify acts in support of political agendas, such as the consolidation of political power, elimination of political opponents, inhibition of legitimate dissent and/or suppression of resistance to military occupation. Labelling opponents or adversaries as terrorists offers a time-tested technique to de-legitimize and demonize them."

Here's another view, which is quite cogently argued and gives clear guidelines as to which agents can be terrorists.
I know how you love academics, Slim, so here's Dr Koechler, who specifically notes that terror bombings are acts of terrorism, and that states should not be excluded from any definition, when the UN eventually creates one. Dr Zen 01:17, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
You said "all definitions that I am aware of" define terrorism as a nongovernmental act. Zain showed you that our own definition otherwise defines it, and, rather than apologise for your presumption, you dismiss our own definition as worthless and browbeat him. This group quotes the FBI. You'll note that its definition centres on lawfulness, not size of grouping involved. You'll also note that the other definitions it cites do not exclude states. Note that the vice president's task force's definition would cover the US invasion of Iraq, which was not lawful. The convention on terrorist bombings would also apply to the bombing of state buildings in Iraq by the US. The CIA quotes the US Code, which includes "subnational" in its definition (if it did not, the US would break its own laws in pursuing its military actions). It is NPOV to include states in this list because, let me remind you once more, Slim, the NPOV policy dictates the inclusion of all views, not just the ones you consider neutral.Dr Zen 00:55, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
First We should accept wikipedia definition. If you disagree please go and start editing that page not this page. Definition issue is not relevent here but it is relevent there.
Any ways the definition which you have provided supports earlier definition!, because it says state actors, which clearly mean persons who act on behalf of state. if you don't believe me search on net for helping let me give you some links [3], I think no you won't have any doubt. So i think I can revert back.
Zain 12:48, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
If the definition is too vague, we need to change the definition. [Adds this to to-do list.] (Any dictionary will give you a more specific definition, involving "terror" as a tactic, not "violence" as a tactic.) As to the list of Christian terrorist countries, most are on the list only because of the absurdly broad def of terrorism, and some of them aren't even Christian (Nazi Germany, as far as I know, drew far more from the bastardized German mysticism dreamed up by Himmler, et al., than Christianity.) The list should be trimmed to REAL terrorist states, not those that it's fashionable to have a low opinion of these days, like the U.S. and Israel. jdb 13:33, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Definition Problem: I have done a lot of research on this definition problem. U.N tried to define it 5 different times all the times involved attempted 'only to define terrorism' with no other thing on agenda but all of them failed!. So at the end we don't have any acceptable definition so even if you check the page on Terrorism you will find that they are not saying any incident as terrorist incident. They simply using wording that these are the incidents which by many are regarded as 'Terrorist incidents'.
    • Work Arounds the wording in the article is 'Alleged' Terroist countries So to keep NPOV.
  • Affiliation Problem Well same problem exists in 'Islamic Terrorism' that how much you should count their objectives as 'islamic'.
    • Work around We simply count majority of adherents of that country, using 'self identification standard' not that because it is 'best' but other are 'worse'.
"Democracy is the worst system of government ever devised. Apart from all the others" Winston Churchill.
Zain 13:51, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Since it's unlikely that we'll resolve the definitional debate over terrorism anytime before we resolve the definitional debate over Industrial music, let's use the Wikipedia say-everything approach. The article should start with discussion of the examples that no-one disagrees upon (Eric Rudolph, self-professed Christian abortion clinic bombers, etc.). We can then add a section on state-based "Christian terrorism", noting that the definition of state-based terror, let alone the membership of the list, is highly controversial. jdb 14:07, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I agree this approach will reduce the confusion and will make the article more information oriented instead of allegation oriented. (I don't say currently it is, but then more people will be agreeing me on it).
Zain 14:48, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I've rephrased a lot of the article. I've also deleted a number of the more polemical paragraphs, although I've tried to preserve the arguments as "Critics believe..." or "Some argue..." statements. One sure-to-be-controversial issue is that I deleted the notion that Christian terrorist groups use subterfuge, rather than overt attacks, to accomplish their goals. The argument had a very conspiratorial slant to the writing (and it wasn't entirely clear what the author intended) so I deleted it. I've also reorganized the list of groups to separate nationalist groups from non-nationalist groups.

Joseph, you've massively improved this article. Thank you for putting so much work into it. Slim 20:55, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)

I've asked you before and I ask you again to stop patronizing me, Zen. You seem to be incapable of dealing with people without snide remarks. Address me once more like that and I will simply ignore you thereafter. A terrorist act would normally be regarded as one carried out in a clandestine or semi-clandestine manner, and September 11 fits that, so I don't know why you raise it as an objection. Any definition of terrorism that includes acts of violence perpetrated openly by states will have to make sure it fully understands all current definitions of war and theories of just war etc, and that's a lot of academic study.

In any event, most importantly, the list of Christian terrorist countries lacked references. It lacked any sense of what a Christian terrorist might be, and I still wonder about the inclusion of the PIRA on the list because they were not fighting for Christianity. They are/were secular. To call them Christian terrorists is like calling the PFLP Islamist terrorists. As for using Wikipedia's own definition, one Wikipedia article isn't meant to use another as a reference. References should be external and reputable otherwise internal errors will become self-perpetuating. Slim 02:04, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)

Is it "patronising" you to point out that you were wrong? I'm sorry, I cannot stop doing that and you will have to ignore me. That's up to you. My comments are not just for you -- I'd email you or at least put them on your talk page if they were. I don't see any problem with having a difference of opinion in robust terms and I won't be discouraged from disagreeing with you by threats. I despair to see your referring to what a terrorist act would "normally" be regarded as when we have been discussing that there is no widely shared definition of terrorism and consequently nothing that can be said to be normative. The definition from Wikipedia was supplied for you solely because you said that you were unaware of any definitions that gave states as possible terrorists. I do not believe we should use it as our definition here. In fact, I don't believe we should selectively use any one definition of what is clearly a contested term, and I think it is against NPOV policy to do so. I very much take issue with you on this particular score. I supplied you with others for your reference and in particular one from the same page that you had used because I felt you had at best been disingenuous in describing its provenance. None of what I supplied you is my own opinion, which is that "terrorism" tends to be a label for what the other side does rather than anything that can be defined concretely.
Personally, I hate these lists, Slim, and I'm all for removing them from any and all articles. I think they are doomed to be POV. They should at the very least be headed something like "List of states that have been accused of terrorism and have been described as Christian". In the terrorism article, which I agree is a poor article, there are "examples of terrorism". I believe Wikipedia should fight shy of examples.
However, given that the NPOV policy dictates the inclusion of all points of view, not just those widely accepted (or those that are "normal", or even those of the UN or academics), there is no reason not to include a list of "states that are accused of terrorism and are described as Christian". Referencing it is not hard at all but the way to achieve that is not simply to revert another editor's work because you do not approve of it, but to ask that he or she completes the job (and then remove it if they cannot or will not comply).
I agree entirely that the PIRA were secular but I do think there's an element of fighting for Catholicism in their struggle. The Troubles began in NI after a period of antiCatholic rioting and disturbances. Of course, the IRA didn't begin with the Troubles. However, its members might identify as Christians. But yes, all in all, I think it is wrong to characterise people as this or that kind of "terrorist" because it is rather misleading, although the PFLP are all Muslims and if "Muslim terrorist" were taken to be entirely descriptive... Well, that's a minefield. Perhaps we should work to reduce the descriptions of people in these terms and, rather, talk about "acts of terror". Above all, we should work to use the most neutral language we can in "our" description and when we give an opinions, give the source of it. But it has to be evenhanded. Strike out the stuff here, but also strike it out elsewhere.Dr Zen 03:47, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree with a lot of what you say. First, the patronizing issue. It's not that you disagree with me, even robustly, it's a certain tone that creeps in. I'll point it out the next time you do it. I don't mind being disagreed with.

As for PIRA, my understanding is that they were a secular, Marxist-Leninist nationalist group, not religious at all. Most, if not all, were Catholics, but that's because it was Catholics who were being discriminated against, and the group was formed in a particular area of Belfast where the discrimination was at its worst. But they didn't form a resistance/terrorist group in order to advance Catholism or Christianity, so I wouldn't call them a Christian terrorist group. Their goal was purely to get the British troops out of Northern Ireland and for there to be some form of self-rule or unification with the rest of Ireland, though "troops out" was their first goal. As for the PFLP, they are not all Muslim. Their long-term leader George Habash was a Christian. The PLFP was also secular, nationalist and Marixist-Leninist, and still are, I believe.

I would also prefer to have none of these lists, but if they are to exist, they must be referenced. This is a "list of Christian terrorist countries," according to whom? When we say that Hezbollah is terrorist, we have to be precise and say "regarded as terrorist by U.S., Canada" etc. The claim is not allowed to stand without a source and the same standard must apply here. I did ask the editor to supply references but he didn't (see below) so I deleted it. If he can find references, he's welcome to put it back in. I never revert/delete any material that is relevant to an article if it is sourced to a reputable publication. You have me down as a POV pusher but I'm not. I'm a references pusher. Slim 04:45, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)

You have it slightly wrong. The IRA adopted a Marxist philosophy and this caused the provos to split from it. They wanted direct action to protect Catholics, among other things. The provos wanted to fight, the officials wanted to take a political route. This obit of Cathal Goulding gives you a flavour of some of the ideas at stake. Goulding was antisectarian (he wanted to united the working class) but his IRA is not the same organisation as that we're more familiar with.
Here's Chomsky describing the US as a terrorist nation. Members of Hezbollah say the same, it won't surprise you to learn. The VP of Indonesia said the US was "king of terrorists" but Japan Today has ditched the article and I can't find another at the moment. A muslim cleric says so. This prof doesn't say they're terrorists but he's quite trenchant on the subject. This imam brands it a terrorist nation. He's a reasonably important figure, I believe, in the Indian community. Dr Zen 05:35, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have no sources on hand regarding PIRA, but my memory is they were strongly Marxist-Leninist until, as I recall, the mid-80s, which was the point at which Gerry Adams succeeded in getting Sinn Fein to vote to abandon abstentionism, which led to a further split within PIRA/Sinn Fein and the Marxist-Leninist membership, who ended up forming a separate party called the League of Communist Republicans. But I don't know what happened to it. Regarding the list, if editors want to put it in with decent references, I have no objection. Slim 06:07, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)

Here's a Marxist who says "The Provisionals adopted a more nationalist position, denouncing the 'Marxism' and atheism of their rivals who they labelled the 'National Liberation Front'." I think it would be reasonable to categorise Adams as a leftist, but that's not the same thing.Dr Zen 06:17, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)


March 26, by *Me*:

If terrorism is the use of violence to cause fear, then one must also define violence. Most would agree that the use of guns and bombs constitutes violence. But what about indirect actions that cause fear, pain, suffering and death? Here are but a few of many possible examples:

- Britain's blockade of Ireland leading to famine and deaths ("Black '47")

- pharmaceutical firms that refuse to release patents, thus preventing lower priced generic drugs from saving lives in poor countries (eg. AIDS drugs in Africa)

- the US government's release of radioactive material over unknowing and unwilling civilians during the 1960s to test the effects of radiation poisoning (specifically, Utah)

- Israel's flying of fighter jets over Palestinian civilians in 2005, causing sonic booms in the middle of the night; it terrorized children and caused miscarriages in pregnant women

- the US's and UN's sanctions on Iraq leading to an estimated 500,000 dead children

Violence can also be economic, such as Israel's closure of Palestinian borders which has decimated their economy, or the Apartheid era in South Africa leaving millions of blacks with low wages and no medical care, leading to death by preventable causes (starvation and disease). Just as domestic abuse is more than physical assault, terrorist violence is more than guns and bombs.

On top of that, terrorism is often justified. For those who disagree, prove to me that the terrorist acts perpetrated by the Resistance against the Nazis in World War II were wrong.

No original research

I would say the most important thing, to begin with, is that this article must be written in good English. Secondly, if you want to come up with a definition of "state terror," good luck, but until you do, you can't add a "list of arguably terrorist countries." What does it mean?? Cite your sources. Remember Wikipedia:No original research, which includes "no novel narratives or historical interpretations," according to Jimbo Wales. So please cite your sources and/or come up with a published definition of state terroristm, or leave out this very silly list, which seems to consist of one person's opinion. Slim 23:31, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

I think u didn't saw the talk earlier in the same section 'It is all about definition' different sources including UN. please see talk in this section thoroughly before making edits. My impression is that you haven't seen the talk. It is all about definition without any ‘original research’. Authentic sources including United Nation itself!. So please please please see the talk thoroughly I made the same request in the edit description. To see the talk thoroughly.
As you might feel offensive if I revert again. So i’ll wait for your comments before reverting. So please see the sources sited for the definition of Terrorism in this section of talk. Zain 23:44, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Zain, my definition of terrorism (the UN "academic definition") does not support your view of state terror, as you say it does, as it states clearly that the state actors must be clandestine or semi-clandestine before the acts are considered "terrorist."

You are using "terrorist" here to refer to anything you personally don't like, it seems to me.

I don't understand why you keep asking me to read this page. I've read it. It doesn't say anything that supports your position. You are not allowed to use Wikipedia to expand on your personal views, do original research, come up with new ideas, concepts, claims or theories, or to create novel narratives or new historical interpretations. This is an encyclopedia, not a news magazine. If you are challenged by another edit, you must support your claims with references to external reputable publications; that is you must cite your sources. You cannot refer to other Wikipedia articles for support. Before you make further edits, please read Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Cite sources and Wikipedia:Verification. Many thanks, Slim 23:53, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

I asked to read because wikipedia own definition (which won't be orignal research as per policy) mention states. In above talk I highlighted the words state and other words which apply here. So please read those definitions. (which are not given by me) definition are accumpnied by the refrences from which they are taken. Primary factors are voilanceagainst non-combats which apply here. Plus see the article on State Terrorism for more details. Zain 00:05, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No, you can't use other Wikipedia articles as sources. You MUST provide citations from reputable, external publications. Any challenged claims without references will be deleted as per Wikipedia policy.

I didn't understand 90 per cent of what you wrote. Can you re-phrase it please? Slim 00:16, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

Let me give you reference from 'Noam Chomsky' a US scholar. Article on him on wikipedia was a 'featured article' he is also listed in world famous jews. in jew Article now let me quote him form the page Definition of terrorism
"...state powers use the same methods torture, bombings, etc which are also "terrorism" ... "
I think definition from such a notable scholar will be some acceptable.
On Israel see following links By a scholar , By A prime minister of NATO. You can finds tons of external resources on it. Of course you can get resource saying opposite. so that's why word alleged was used.
So are we near any consensus now? :Zain 01:08, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Zain, I mean no disrespect, but I don't have time to write everything three or four times, so please take note:

  • 1) You cannot use other Wikipedia articles as references;
  • 2) You must provide citations in the articles you write for any claims challenged by another editor;
  • 3) YOU must provide the references; you can't ask other editors to do it for you;
  • 4) You will have to find a reputable publication, organization, or else a government, that says these countries are terrorist countries;
  • 5) Please read carefully Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Cite sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability before you make any further edits. If you read all these policy documents carefully, they will answer most of your questions.

The Noam Chomsky quote "state powers use the same methods torture, bombings, etc which are also "terrorism"" would include every government that ever fought a war, so your list will become very long indeed.

Your articles MUST be written from a neutral point of view. You can't represent your own views (or Noam Chomsky's, a writer no one would call neutral, himself included) as though they are facts. Putting the word "arguably" in is not enough. You have to say WHO has argued this, and give a reference for each country you name. For example, Wikipedia editors are not allowed to call Hezbollah or Hamas "terrorist" without saying that they have been designated terrorists by (e.g.) the UN, the European Union, the U.S. etc. Similarly, for your list, you have to say WHO has named these countries as terrorist, and the source must be a recognized authority or another government. It cannot just be your opinion based on a Chomsky remark. Slim 01:46, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

Definition of "Christian terrorism"

We should restrict the "Christian terrorism" label to groups whose goals are based on (their twisted interpretation of) Christianity. For example, it's ridiculous to count the Irish Republican Army and its splinter groups as "Christian terrorist"; that's like saying the Vietnamese Buddhist monks who resisted the French were "Buddhist terrorists." The IRA's goals are based on nationalism, not Christianity. --Szyslak 04:21, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree. I can't think of a terrorist group whose goals are Christian. Slim 08:19, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
True, and Islamist terrorist groups don't have "Muslim" goals, although they might think they do. But there are a few "Christian terrorists" out there that consider their goals "Christian." A few examples would include Eric Robert Rudolph (who's accused of bombing Centennial Olympic Park, two abortion clinics and a gay bar) and various militant white supremacist groups. A definition of "Christian terrorism" would have to include groups like that while excluding groups like the IRA. --Szyslak 09:17, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Yes, point taken; I hadn't thought of them. I'm not myself minded to do much work on this article, because it's such a mess. It needs a complete re-write and re-think in my view, or deletion. Slim 11:43, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
Agreed. This article's currently on VfD, and that's where I first found it. I voted to keep, but if this article doesn't show some big improvements soon, I might change my mind if it goes back on VfD. --Szyslak 06:06, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree with you somewhat, but this rather simplifies the IRA's approach and makes too little of the religious element to the conflict in NI, which undoubtedly exists. I'm not sure it is possible to define "Christian terrorism" in a reasonable way, because while terrorists might not be "fighting for" Christianity or what you might recognise as "Christian aims", they do self-identify as Christian. It's an unfortunate consequence of English that "christian terrorist" can be read as "terrorist who is christian", which would be true of most of the IRA, and "terrorist in a Christian cause", which is arguably not true of any of the people named! Dr Zen 03:54, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

1976, Ten dead in Northern Ireland bus ambush Ten Protestant men have been shot dead as they were returning home from work in a mini-bus in Northern Ireland... It is believed the massacre was in revenge for the murders of five Catholics in Lurgen and Whitecross last night...Another workman on the bus, a Catholic, was ordered away from the scene. To say that the troubles in Northern Ireland were just about nationalism, [and] not Christianity is like saying that the American Civil War and civil liberties campaigns were about States rights and not racism. The latest round of troubles in Northern Ireland started because of the treatment of civil rights campaigners. 1969: Civil rights protesters defiant followed by the battle of the Bogside. To see how politics and the christian religion are inertwined in Northern Ireland have a look at the speaches of Dr Ian Paisley I particulary like the article The Vacant Seat Number 666 in the European Parliament while Rome's Crimes – Has she repented of them? is perhapse more on topic.Philip Baird Shearer 19:54, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hmm.. dodgy ground. The Catholics and Protestants cited in the report you quote above were not named as Catholic or Protestant because they were devout believers and church goers, but because that distinction defines whether they were born into one or other ethnic faction. io.e. they share both the genetic and cultural heritage the people of one of the two dominant faiths that divide Northern Ireland. In Northern Irelead, for the most part (there are of course notable exceptions), the people of the Protestant faith are decended from those people who were "planted" on the island from the end of the Tudor period onwards. The Protestant/Catholic tag is not much more than a useful label among most people, there are of course some people for whom their faith (as opposed to the culture and heritage of their faith) is very important but this is not true for the majority of people. Jooler 22:22, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm going to remove the Northern Ireland terrorist organisations from this list. Phillip, the quote about the Kingsmill massacre is accurate, but in some respects misleading, as Jooler has pointed out. The people were not killed for their religious beliefs, but for belonging to a rival ethno-political group. The ideology of the IRA and INLA etc is not religious. The IRA is nationalist/republican, the INLA is marxist. The conflict has religious terminology attatched to it because historically the rival ethnic and political groups in Ireland, basically British and Irish, were defined in erligious terms as Protestant and Catholic. It is not really equivalent to saying the ACW war was not about racism, the issue here is not whehter there's bigotry, but what the bigotry is about. The conflict in Northern Ireland is not about converting the other side to another religion, or making some religion the state church, or enforcing the teachings of any church - these are just not issues in the conflict, ergo is is not a religious conflict. Ian Paisley certainly does have a strong religious element to his politics, but he is not a terrorist. The Loyalist sometimes tend towards religious language -eg "For God and Ulster" but they are not dedicated to the advance of the protestant faith - hteir objective is the retention of NI within the UK. Jdorney 21:24, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I understand the argument against including the Northern Irish groups, but it remains a fact that they were divided on religious grounds. People could be killed by either side simply for being in a Catholic/Protestant region. While it is not a simple situation, the numerous terrorist groups were clearly divided along religious lines. It could be argued that they were indirectly promoting religious agendas, as the Catholic terrorists would ideally like to see the Protestants driven out entirely, and vice versa. --StoatBringer 23:30, 9 July 2005 (UTC)


I have scanned this page and I have failed to see a mention about Hitler. If there is please let me know. Now, I mention Hitler beacause, in fact, he claimed to be a Christian and persecuting Jews in the name of God. Her are some examples:

"The National Socialist Movement has wrought this miracle. If Almighty God granted success to this work, then the Party was His instrument." -Adolf Hitler, in his proclamation to the German People on 1 Jan. 1939

"We have experienced a miracle, something unique, something the like of which there has hardly been in the history of the world. God first allowed our people to be victorious for four and a half years, then He abased us, laid upon us a period of shamelessness, but now after a struggle of fourteen years he has permitted us to bring that period to a close. It is a miracle which has been wrought upon the German people.... It shows us that the Almighty has not deserted our people, that He received it into favour at the moment when it rediscovered itself. And that our people shall never again lose itself, that must be our vow so long as we shall live and so long as the Lord gives us the strength to carry on the fight.? -Adolf Hitler, in a speech to the "Old Guard" of the Party at Munich on 19 March, 1934

"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before in the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice.... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.... When I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very devil if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom to-day this poor people is plundered and exploited." -Adolf Hitler, in his speech on 12 April 1922

If those qoutes from Hitler(espesialy the last one) do not convince you that Hitler was acting on what he thought were "Christian Principles" and that he was acting on behalf of God, then you are blind.----Ashley15


The best quote is, that not men's words count, but the work he does. And it's from the Bible itself (Matt. 7,16).

And Hitler did really bad things on all the world and also over here were I live. That's in Germany. So no, he was not acting on behalf of God, and also isn't Bush. ----Genscher [15.09.06]

thanks joseph

This article is now much closer to the article it should have been to begin with.

whole new can of worms

This page is....astonishing. Just because there is anti-abortion terrorism does not make it explicitly Christian. Terrorism is a modern term how could you possibly include the Inquisition or the Crusades? I'm gonna avoid the NPOV tag but I'm adding the cleanup. freestylefrappe 02:40, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

I very much oppose the cleanup tag - this page in its current state has undergone heavy community rewriting already, and pretty much everyone agrees on the state of the anti-abortionists in its current context as well as the phrasing of the crusade bits. The anti-abortion terrorism as conducted by Christian fundamentalists can and should be defined as religiously motivated, ie. Christian, terrorism. But please don't create new arguments solely because you, like everybody else, disagree on WP's definitions on terrorism. Removing tag.--TVPR 12:53, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
i'd be pretty sure that the vast majority of anti-abortion terrorism (at least in the West) is from a Christian standpoint (at least as much as Al-Qaeda's anti-capitalist, anti-democratic terrorism is from a Muslim standpoint). i've certainly never heard of any secular anti-abortion terrorism. --Jamieli 14:26, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
...but there was no tag to remove. No matter. I forgot to say that although I agree with the edits you've recently performed, Freestylefrappe, I do not think the article warrants said tag - also, the terrorism as being a modern term is a clear fault, as per the (admittedly weak) definition.--TVPR 12:59, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
Alright. however, i am removing balliari's last edit as this is ridiculous and i disdinctly removed the "self-professed" because it weakens the point. freestylefrappe 21:54, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
Aye, this was one of the edits I agreed on. Either you are, or you aren't. However, mainstream Christians seem to take offense from "Christian terrorists", and prefer "self-professed Ch t's" as that distances said terrorists from themselves. It's silly in a supposedly NPOV encyclopedia, but they are in a majority role - seemingly - so there's little to be done. The same group of people initially wanted to delete this entire article because, as it was said, Christianity is "incompatible with terrorism". --TVPR 07:20, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
They can complain as much as they want. Ill have no problem removing their self-professed edits for their rest of eternity. and having the LRA as a christian sect is amazingly stupid but whateverrrrrr. freestylefrappe 21:23, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
Hi Freestylefrappe. I'd appreciate knowing what you mean by 'ridiculous'. I'd also like to know why an edit that "weakens the point" is undesirable: the aim of WP is to document, not to prove a point. jdb ❋ (talk) 01:04, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
It's ridiculous because it intentionally implies that the group isn't actually Christian. And if it isnt actually Christian it shouldnt even be on this page. Trying to make a distinction between my usage of the word "point" and the "document" is childish. It is obvious that adding self-professed is only a way of weakening this document to the point where it has no real content. Everything is a "possibility" or an unvarifiable claim. Just because one assumes the document as a whole shouldnt exist doesnt mean one should vandalize it. It's as simple as that. freestylefrappe 02:20, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
My use of the term "self-professed" was to call attention to the fact that mainstream adherents (of any religion) generally consider terrorist elements thereof to be heretical. You may disagree. That's fine. I do, however, ask that you please be civil -- calling me 'ridiculous' and 'childish' may make you feel better, but it's not going to convince anyone that you're right. jdb ❋ (talk) 02:49, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
What? I was referring to the use of self-professed as ridiculous. Heretical? Thats bizarre. I've never heard of that, nor was there any mention of that on this page, nor does it have anything to do with using self-professed. Obviously TVPR does agree with me on this, and so far you're the only one who doesnt. Frankly, removing two words is not a big diss to your editing skills. If you really care about the usage then make your case. Otherwise let it go because this is getting monotonous. freestylefrappe 19:09, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

Op. Rescue

Anonymous User:70.116.115.59 edited out Operation Rescue with the reasoning "[...] protests are not terrorism". By the same reasoning, 9\11 was a protest against US domination of world economy, and thus, not an act of terrorism. Now, I think we all agree that blowing up several airplanes, half the Pentagon as well as the twin towers could be defined as terrorism and not a "peaceful protest" - ergo, Op. Rescue stays in the list. NPOV, please, and don't let your anti-abortion stance get the better of you. --TVPR 06:37, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I would agree with the anonymous user, if Operation Rescue have in fact never used violence as their article here seems to suggest. Terrorism in the sense that it is being used here is terrorism using violence. However, if they have used violence then yeah, they should be in here, and their wikipedia article should also be adjusted accordingly. --Jamieli 09:27, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia's own page for Operation Rescue talks about civil disobedience, leaflets and prayer vigils. To my knowledge, they have never killed anyone or destroyed anything. Unless you can cite examples, the should be removed. By your rational, all the A.N.S.W.E.R. war protesters would be terrorists too. Anonymous User:70.116.115.59 12:34, 1 Jun 2005
The thing is that Randall incites to violence, or at least violent means. I'd wager Osama never killed anyone personally - at least not in Al Quidas name - but he's still a terrorist. I wasn't the one to add Op. Rescue to the list initially though, and I won't mind removing it if there can be produced any sort of solid arguments for doing so. --TVPR 20:36, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
How does Randall incite violence? Public protests and civil disobedience are not terrorism or even "inciting violence." Certainly Jesse Jackson, Martin Luther King, or gay pride activists are not terrorists. Besides, I'd take that wager. Osama was involved in the Soviet-Afghan wars. However, he ORDERED 9/11. That's like John Gotti ordering hits. Since you cannot show proof that Randall Terry ordered violence, it must be removed. Anonymous 64.154.26.251 0831 2 Jun 05
I just removed the link, before I saw this discussion. I am pro-choice, but I agree with the view that because they use civil disobedience and not outright violence they are not a terrorist organization. If Randall is telling his people that they SHOULD commit violence then it is a terrorist organization, but some kind of documentation of that is needed. CClio333 21:54, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
The anon above argued that bin Laden was involved in a certain CIA-sponsored group blowing up russians, but that group was not al Quaida - which I explicitly noted he had likely not killed in the name of. And I'd like to see evidence he actually did order the 9\11 incident. My guess, there is none. I bet he loved the idea, and propably did encourage it, but as for a direct order, nobody knows. Isn't that the whole idea about terrorist cells an old how? That they are, indeed, separate and individual cells, rather than one big old terrible army? That they act independently? And the fact that Randall Terry cannot order violence does not mean he's not encouraging it. --TVPR 14:49, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Crusades

How can the Crusades be considered terrorism? The Crusades were a war, with noble origins, which was fought brutally and inhumanely, on both sides. However, it is no more brutal that some of the wars fought anywhere else in Europe at the time. Soon, you guys will start to call Sherman's march to the Sea, terrorism. Anonymous User:64.154.26.251 12:54, 1 Jun 2005

Which noble origins? "To slay the heathen swine, and retake the Holy Land!" That's basically what Al Quida are trying to do today.--TVPR 20:38, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Far from being wars of aggression, the Crusades were a belated military response of Christian Europe to over three centuries of Muslim aggression against Christian lands, the systemic mistreatment of the indigenous Christian population of those lands, and harassment of Christian pilgrims. The Muslim record of the preceding century was grim. In 1009, Hakem, the Fatimite Caliph of Egypt, ordered the destruction of the Holy Sepulchre and all the Christian establishments in Jerusalem. For years thereafter, Christians were persecuted even more cruelly than in the early period of Muslim rule. In 1065, thousands of Christian pilgrims who had crossed Europe under the leadership of Günther, Bishop of Bamberg, while on their way through Palestine, had to seek shelter in a ruined fortress where they defended themselves against Muslim attackers, in violation of earlier pledges that they would enjoy safe access to the holy sites. The rise of the Seljuk Turks compromised even the tenuous safety of Christian pilgrims. They conquered Armenia and Asia Minor, where their descendants still live. In 1070 they took Jerusalem, and in 1071 Diogenes, the Greek emperor, was defeated and made captive at Mantzikert. Syria was the next to become the prey of the Turks. Antioch succumbed in 1084, and by 1092 not one of the great metropolitan sees of Asia remained in the possession of the Christians.

In spite of the Great Schism of 1054, the Byzantine emperors deemed the renewed threat from the east serious enough to seek help from Rome. The battle of Manzikert was the indirect cause of the Crusades, heralding Byzantium’s loss of control in Asia Minor. In 1073, letters were exchanged between Emperor Michael VII and Pope Gregory VII, who planned to send an army of 50,000 men to repulse the Turks. Gregory’s successor, Urban II, took up those plans and convened a council at Clermont-Ferrand. As you can see from the aformentioned, the Crusades were a war responding to Islamic aggression. They began as defensive in nature. Regardless, terrorism was not a factor. Unless you can refute the above, I see no reason why the Crusades should remain. Anonymous 64.154.26.251 0831 2 Jun 05

  • You are all wrong, but only one of my points is relevant to the topic of Christian terrorism. Points:

1. At the time of the Crusades, the areas inhabited by the Muslims were far more advanced because of their economy, being at the center of world trade. The Crusades were composed of some of the most extreme barbaristic people in far more barbaristic lands.

2. The 3rd Crusade sacked Christian Byzantine/Constantinople, showing that these were barbaristic people whose true motive was greed. And, frankly, in those days, the Popes and religious leaders were just as greedy and could not really be looked on as true religious leaders.

Now, the relevant part to this topic:

3. Terrorism is only a term that fits within the context of the later half of the 20th Century. Anything else is anachronistic and done solely to insert some POV, whether one side is attempting to prove that terrorism (as distinguished from violence) was a tactic adopted by early Muslims or the other side attempting to demonstrate that everyone does terror. Let's stop playing anachronistic games.

--Noitall 02:14, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

  • No you are mostly wrong.

Points 1 and 2 are completely irrelevant. Who cares whether the Christians were more barbaristic and less advanced. The main point of the poster is that the Crusades were a belated defensive action againt Muslim agression and oppression, not an offensive action. You haven't refute this point regardless of whether you are correct about Christian being bigger barbarians. Muslim Jihads were a form of Crusade and anyone who believes the Christians were the only ones to blame for the Crusades is just demonstrating their anti-Western, anti-Christian bias. Remember Egypt, Palestine, Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Iraq were all Christian lands before the Muslim invasion.

As for point 3 I totally agree with you

it wasn't defensive they attacked and killed thousands of people it was offensive 10 bucks says if the crusades were started by muslims against christians you'd be screaming about how it was terrorism.


Klu Klux Klan

Again, how is the KKK, Christian terrorism? Christian terrorism should be limited to acts of violence commited in the name of Christianity. The KKK is a white supramacist group, where religious matters are involved. They happen to be Protestant, but their Protestantism isn't a basis, cause, or motive in their actions. The KKK is no more a Chrisitan terrorist organization than Eric Rudouph was a white supremacist. Eric Rudolph's actions were based in his view of Christianity. He happen to be white, but his skin color was not a factor in his actions. On the other hand, now you can see more clearly why the KKK memebers being Christian didn't apply. Anonymous 64.154.26.251 0831 2 Jun 05


04:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)04:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)04:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)04:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)04:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)04:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)04:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)61.58.53.139 04:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC) March 26, 2006 by *Me*:

Christians can lie and deny all they want, but the bombing of churches and burning of homes and businesses for the purpose of causing fear qualifies as terrorism. The KKK are "christians", the KKK are terrorists. Ergo, they're christian terrorists.

Why the endless façade? Because you believe that admitting the KKK are christian terrorists means "all christians are terrorists"? Only in your mind, not mine. 04:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)04:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)04:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)04:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)04:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)04:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)04:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)61.58.53.139 04:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


The KKK is undeniably a Christian organization, it is thought of by its members as a Christian fraternal brotherhood defending Christianity from atheists and Jews and various other non-WASPs. It's fairly difficult to find any official literature on the Klan that doesnt include some reference to "taking action on behalf of God" or defending "Christian ideals". It also has close links with Christian Identity.
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/price&bowers/Klan.html
http://www.masterworksinternational.com/BBarchive/messages/190.htm
http://www.wckkkk.com/index2.html
And yeah, a lot of what the KKK does and talks about has nothing really to do with Christianity, but then a lot of what Al-Qaeda propaganda (about capitalist decadence, evils of democracy, etc) talks about has nothing really to do with Islam.
--Jamieli 14:46, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The KKK's actions are mostly racial in origin and action. They derided the dirty n$%ger not the infidel. If you want to leave it, it is fine as it is mostly just a footnote, but I continue to protest the inclusion of the Crusades and Randall Terry. Anonymous 64.154.26.251 1306 2 Jun 05
Did you read the links I provided, or even what I just posted? The KKK are thought of by its members as a Christian fraternal brotherhood defending Christianity and working for God. KKK literature and propaganda is full of references to Christianity. These are facts.
As for Randall Terry, it's a borderline case. He doesn't appear to have bombed anything or killed anyone, but he has links to and has publically praised people who have. Probably best to remove him for now. --Jamieli 19:13, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This REALLY REALLY makes me feel icky, and trust in no way am I saying this isnt true... but is it NPOV to write "Ku Klux Klan (A racist Protestant Christian organization. )".... as I understand it OFFICIALLY the KKK believe that people of different races shouldnt mix, and war wont stop until each country only has one race in each and they only breed with each other. To them this isnt racist they cite it its the only way to stop conflict "Its love, not hate" is sometimes their slogan, but to us its a perversion of logic that has a racist conclusion.... so calling them a racist group is POV, their policys certainly speak of race but racism has such a negative connotation... :/..... what do you think? eww... that made me feel dirty, I need a shower.. (their is no love lost if the word stays their either) - UnlimitedAccess 18:19, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

in the U.S.

Whoops, put comments on Rudolph bombing on the wrong page, here they are:

  • You have highlighted the crucial factor in why this is not "Christian terrorism." It is terrorism by white nutso men. There is no organized Christian teaching, extremist or otherwise, that helps to forment this. There is no broader conspiracy or group organized to carry this out. There are not even multiple terrorists (there aren't even any "copycat" terrorists. These loners are anarchists and murderers, not "Christian terrorists." --Noitall 05:17, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
    • Funny, that's what most Imams say about arabs committing what you would call acts of terrorism. --TVPR 16:56, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
This seems somewhat of a non-sequitur. What do protestations by Islamic clergy have to do with Arab terrorism (or were you alluding to Islamic terrorism?) and, more germanely, what does your statement have to do with the topic-at-hand—Christian terrorism? Please clarify. —Ryanaxp 17:49, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
I'm merely stating that sure, you can go on about all the white nutters bombing stuff and saying it's in God's name not being Christian terrorists at all, even though they consider themselves devout Christians, and are undeniably terrorists. On the opposite end of the table are all the people we refer to as Islamic terrorists - they, too, get the response here provided by Noitall from the mainstream spokesmen of their religion. But we don't call them loners, anarchists or murderers. We call them Muslim terrorists, or Islamic terrorists. I think it's okay to be biased, as long as you're aware of it. Noitall seems sadly unaware of his. --TVPR 20:16, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Regarding Noitall's assertion that lack of a broad conspiracy or larger organization beyond the individual somehow removes acts committed by an individual from the realm of terrorism, this seems a weak argument. It seems self-evident that for an act to qualify as terrorism, the following criteria must apply (as restated from my memory of an apt definition of the word "terrorism" I read somewhere):

  • The act was committed to intimidate or influence the actions of a group of people;
  • The act comprises violence or destruction of property, or the threat of violence or destruction of property; and
  • The act is prohibited by (national) law or, when the act is committed or furthered by a government, the broadly accepted principles of international law.

And further, to qualify as Christian terrorism as opposed to other forms of terrorism (such as terrorism in support of a secular revolutionary group, for example), the following must also apply (in addition to the criteria noted above):

  • A primary intention of the party committing the act must have included the furtherance of a principle of Christianity, as perceived by the party committing the act.

Thus, for example, if a person were to assassinate an abortion doctor with the belief that doing so would promote that person's understanding of Christian belief, then the act would properly be described as Christian terrorism—even if that person's understanding of Christianity were utterly repudiated by every single other Christian as entirely contrary to Christianity, and even if that person acted entirely alone without the support of or even without the existence of any other person or organization which shared that person's beliefs and/or goals. —Ryanaxp 17:49, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

At this point, it seems clear to me that really, you and I agree. I'm just being more blunt about it.--TVPR 20:18, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Well, we agree to a point. I just think there is 1 more important criteria. I believe if you label anything "Christian" then it can't be one person's crazy belief. If one person's crazy belief permits the label terrorism, then the "terrorism" categories would be infinite and meaningless (e.g., do we start a page on "athiest terrorism" based on Rudolph?). If you label it "Christian," then there must be one of two circumstances, 1. other extremist people preach a violence based on Christianity or to support Christianity and the terrorist adopts that violent message to commit terrorism, or 2. More than 1 terrorists conspire, justifying their actions on Christianity. --Noitall 02:15, July 21, 2005 (UTC)


Those two circumstances are immaterial. If a Muslim loner who had never been to a mosque, let alone an extremist one, decided to emulate the suicide bombers he saw on TV and blow himself up in a Western city, leaving behind a suicide note saying he did it to be a martyr for Allah, he would get called an Islamic terrorist. He wouldn't just get called a crazy nut or an anarchist because he had never been involved with any organized terrorist organizations. If someone commits terrorism (i.e. a large scale act of violence designed to create terror) in the name of a religion they are a religious terrorist. End of story. I have no idea where your additional criteria are coming from but i've certainly never seen them used before to define religious terrorism. Anyway, there are organized groups who promote abortion bombings and suchlike in the name of Christianity, so all this is neither here nor there. And yes, if Rudolph's writings and testimonies detailed that he wanted to blow up stuff in order to protest against religion, he would be an "atheist terrorist". But they didn't, he wanted to protest against "global socialism" and abortion, so he gets called a right-wing terrorist. The Columbine High School shootings could be called atheist terrorism, I suppose. --Jamieli 11:00, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Where's the Refs?

I could not find any refs on this article. And the talk archived on this page--deciding on definitions to use for terrorism and fitting people or groups to it--looks pretty obviously like original research. Now a lot of it looks like common sense or stuff you'd expect to find a source for easily, but someday it needs to be followed up on. One exception is the line about crusades and witchhunts which makes no sense to me and I couldn't find anything worthwhile on with google. I also notice, oddly enough, its a completely warped version of what the line originally meant in old revisions. a misunderstanding? So I nuked that line till someone can show a source. keith 17:13, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

LRA is NOT Christian

All references to the Lord's Resistance Army should be removed. Joseph Kony, the official, undisputable leader, converted to Islam. freestylefrappe 23:29, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Although the leader is said to have converted according to some sources, his organization still upholds a christian agenda and is made up of mostly fundamental christians. See the Lord's Resistance Army article for a start. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 23:34, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
I am quite familar with the LRA. They are not fundamentalist Christians, and little of their beliefs coincide with any Christian denomination. Kony has incorporated the Catholic beliefs he was raised with, with local beliefs regarding mediumistic automatism, and Islamic beliefs so that the National Islamic Front will support him. The LRA do not view themselves as Christians, they simply place great emphasis on the ten commandments just as the Movement for the Restoration of the Ten Commandments did. freestylefrappe 02:06, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

The Movement for the Restoration of the Ten Commandments was Christian though. In least everything I've read they were a radical offshoot of Ugandan folk Catholicism. Reading up on ELN they are apparently Marxist and believers in liberation theology, revering a priest as a martyr. I'm not sure they'd fit though, but closest I've found. Anyway I'm not sure I mind the idea there are Christian terrorist. There are 2 billion Christians out there and it doesn't mean much if a few form psycho groups.--T. Anthony 09:43, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

According to http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2006/001/18.30.html?lid=ct_deliver_us_title&1pos=main the so called LRA takes its practices from a number of beliefs, including Christianity, Islam, and African witchcraft. Beyond that, they obviously don't adhere to Christian teaching. North Korea calls itself the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, but we don't consider them a democracy gone awry, we call them what they are; a communist state. So, too, is it inappropriate to call the LRA "Christian" which means "little Christ".

As recently as this 2006 article, Kony was not a Muslim and was not permitting his followers to convert to Islam. This 1997 Human Rights Watch article, the LRA is Christian. Specifically the article states: The Lord's Resistance Army has long identified itself with a Christian religious tradition. It is led by Joseph Kony, who claims to be in communication with the Holy Spirit. The Lord's Resistance Army receives military assistance and other support from the militantly Islamic Sudanese government. So although they have ties to an Islamist government, the LRA itself is Christian. And if the Human Rights Watch says it... CClio333 23:18, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I am retracting the above comment per the discussion on the Lord's Resistance Army page. CClio333 12:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
It is ridiculous. Claiming that a SYNCRETIC sect, joining elements from Christianity, african religions and islam (something like Haitan Vudoo) is Christian, is a fallacy. And in such contects appears to be a provocation. Yeti 14:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC)