Fox News Picks And Chooses it's "Terrorism" Targets

[homersapien 11,347]

Its quite amazing so many are so determined to defend a "religion" whose prophet was a mass murderer and a pedophile. There are well over 100 versus in the Koran that promote the killing of Christians and Jews over co-existing with them peacefully.

Just to clarify, I am not defending any particular religion, particularly the ones based on documents like the Bible or the Koran.

Clearly, either has the capability to produce terrorists who act on the basis of those sacred documents.

While it is true that Islam is currently the primary problem as far as that is concerned, it is clear that Christians have exhibited the same sort of propensity in the past. There is nothing unique about the writings in the Koran. Similar stuff is found in the Old Testament.

To claim that Islam has a unique propensity to produce violence is to claim that anyone who is Muslim has that propensity. That is is simply not true. In fact, it is reflective of the same xenophobic mind set the terrorists espouse.

I find it amazing that you cannot seem to grasp the point. You clearly are being informed by your fear and hatred instead of your intellect.

Its quite amazing so many are so determined to defend a "religion" whose prophet was a mass murderer and a pedophile. There are well over 100 versus in the Koran that promote the killing of Christians and Jews over co-existing with them peacefully.

Just to clarify, I am not defending any particular religion, particularly the ones based on documents like the Bible or the Koran.

Clearly, either has the capability to produce terrorists who act on the basis of those sacred documents.

While it is true that Islam is currently the primary problem as far as that is concerned, it is clear that Christians have exhibited the same sort of propensity in the past. There is nothing unique about the writings in the Koran. Similar stuff is found in the Old Testament.

To claim that Islam has a unique propensity to produce violence is to claim that anyone who is Muslim has that propensity. That is is simply not true. In fact, it is reflective of the same xenophobic mind set the terrorists espouse.

I find it amazing that you cannot seem to grasp the point. You clearly are being informed by your fear and hatred instead of your intellect.

You keep harping on the Bible's capability of producing terrorists...PLEASE bring ONE to my attention that is completely subjugating its women, subjecting them to genital mutilation, that allows honor killing of its own children and actually promotes the death sentence for apostasy. You obviously know NOTHING about the Bible. The main prophet of New Testament Christianity is Jesus Christ and the one simple thing he taught was, 'Love thy neighbor as thyself" Islam brazenly teaches its believers to NOT take Christians or Jews as their friends. Muhammed, the Prophet of Islam, was a mass murderer and a pedophile and you ignorantly continue to make comparisons to Christianity. The guy was running a crime syndicate from day one to TAKE what he wanted by force which included beheading non-believers. The reason the beheading angle is so newsworthy is because it is so characteristic of lslam. Please tell me you're NOT this obtuse!

Please note my statements highlighted above, which presumably, you are responding to .

Are you asking me to reference that history?

Really?

[Elephant Tipper 430]

homer, do you actually read HuffPost ? It's a matter of ratings as well as news. HP has only a fraction of what Fox has in viewers/readers. The HP writer is like the tail trying to wag the dog by complaining what Fox doesn't do..

Fox has been covering the Frein issue but not to the same degree. Frein's argument is against the state....ISIS will chop your neighbor's head off. Which story would get your attention first ?

Thanks for making my point.

It's not about news at all. It's about beheading's being much more sensational than simple wounds from a high velocity bullet. The political slant which demonizes Muslims as opposed to right-wing extremists is just a happy coincidence.

homer, you misunderstand the concept of ratings and are contorting the reports to fit your narrative. Ratings imply that the audience is receptive to the news that the broadcasters are reporting. So long as there is "news" to report and the audience is willing to listen to those reports then more information of the same nature will be reported until either the news cycle or interest dies. Viewers are less interested in Frein because he's not out to attack the American individual. His issue is with the government per se. ISIS is now pushing to attack American individuals with grotesque means. Beheading a woman at a meat processing plant (how ironic is that ?) grabs the public's attention more than some wacko wandering in the woods. What is there to report about Frein anyway ? Peek-a-boo ? Come find me ? It rained while troopers searched for Frein today ? In the meantime ISIS is very dynamic, very fluid. You don't know what crap they're up to next.

Your HuffPo guy wants Fox to report news that has a limited audience. He's actually jealous of the viewership that Fox generates (reasonable speculation). Fox has 5-10 million viewers per night for O'Reilly alone. Your HuffPo writer probably generated less than 100K...probably a lot less.

[homersapien 11,347]

homer, do you actually read HuffPost ? It's a matter of ratings as well as news. HP has only a fraction of what Fox has in viewers/readers. The HP writer is like the tail trying to wag the dog by complaining what Fox doesn't do..

Fox has been covering the Frein issue but not to the same degree. Frein's argument is against the state....ISIS will chop your neighbor's head off. Which story would get your attention first ?

Thanks for making my point.

It's not about news at all. It's about beheading's being much more sensational than simple wounds from a high velocity bullet. The political slant which demonizes Muslims as opposed to right-wing extremists is just a happy coincidence.

homer, you misunderstand the concept of ratings and are contorting the reports to fit your narrative. Ratings imply that the audience is receptive to the news that the broadcasters are reporting. So long as there is "news" to report and the audience is willing to listen to those reports then more information of the same nature will be reported until either the news cycle or interest dies. Viewers are less interested in Frein because he's not out to attack the American individual. His issue is with the government per se. ISIS is now pushing to attack American individuals with grotesque means. Beheading a woman at a meat processing plant (how ironic is that ?) grabs the public's attention more than some wacko wandering in the woods. What is there to report about Frein anyway ? Peek-a-boo ? Come find me ? It rained while troopers searched for Frein today ? In the meantime ISIS is very dynamic, very fluid. You don't know what crap they're up to next.

Your HuffPo guy wants Fox to report news that has a limited audience. He's actually jealous of the viewership that Fox generates (reasonable speculation). Fox has 5-10 million viewers per night for O'Reilly alone. Your HuffPo writer probably generated less than 100K...probably a lot less.

Wow. That was long exposition which pretty much makes my point for me. At least a major aspect of my point.

The only part I really disagree with is the idea that Fox is simply responding to their viewer interest which I find absurdly naive.

Fox is a politically-driven propaganda machine. The fact that they may have a (much smaller) liberal counterpart wanna-be in no way changes that fact. Most of my family have become Fox-bots. I guess it's just another one of those southern "thangs" I didn't inherent (thank God!).

But you're right. It's pure, profit-driven, tabloid journalism.

[Elephant Tipper 430]

homer, do you actually read HuffPost ? It's a matter of ratings as well as news. HP has only a fraction of what Fox has in viewers/readers. The HP writer is like the tail trying to wag the dog by complaining what Fox doesn't do..

Fox has been covering the Frein issue but not to the same degree. Frein's argument is against the state....ISIS will chop your neighbor's head off. Which story would get your attention first ?

Thanks for making my point.

It's not about news at all. It's about beheading's being much more sensational than simple wounds from a high velocity bullet. The political slant which demonizes Muslims as opposed to right-wing extremists is just a happy coincidence.

homer, you misunderstand the concept of ratings and are contorting the reports to fit your narrative. Ratings imply that the audience is receptive to the news that the broadcasters are reporting. So long as there is "news" to report and the audience is willing to listen to those reports then more information of the same nature will be reported until either the news cycle or interest dies. Viewers are less interested in Frein because he's not out to attack the American individual. His issue is with the government per se. ISIS is now pushing to attack American individuals with grotesque means. Beheading a woman at a meat processing plant (how ironic is that ?) grabs the public's attention more than some wacko wandering in the woods. What is there to report about Frein anyway ? Peek-a-boo ? Come find me ? It rained while troopers searched for Frein today ? In the meantime ISIS is very dynamic, very fluid. You don't know what crap they're up to next.

Your HuffPo guy wants Fox to report news that has a limited audience. He's actually jealous of the viewership that Fox generates (reasonable speculation). Fox has 5-10 million viewers per night for O'Reilly alone. Your HuffPo writer probably generated less than 100K...probably a lot less.

Wow. That was long exposition which pretty much makes my point for me. At least a major aspect of my point.

The only part I really disagree with is the idea that Fox is simply responding to their viewer interest which I find absurdly naive.

Fox is a politically-driven propaganda machine. The fact that they may have a (much smaller) liberal counterpart wanna-be in no way changes that fact. Most of my family have become Fox-bots. I guess it's just another one of those southern "thang" I didn't inherent (thank God!).

But your right. It's pure, profit-driven, tabloid journalism.

homer, you're naive if you think a major news network is going to spend time reporting events that don't interest the people (like your HuffPo guy does), which in turn generates $$$. That's why MSNBC is in the tank and CNN is trying to recover from the same ill-conceived strategy. Neither MSNBC or CNN could stand on their ratings if they weren't a subsidiary sucking down the company cash.

All you're doing is bashing Fox for reporting what is interesting to the public. Since that doesn't interest you then stick with HuffPo or MSNBC. You'll get the Al Sharpton slant all day, every day.

You've projected your words on me. Did I say Fox reporting is "pure, profit-driven, tabloid journalism" ? You did. Fox reports the news. If you don't like their presentation, then change the channel. You're just a disgruntled liberal because ONE network doesn't suck on Obama like the others, that or you're jealous because your relatives have common sense that you don't.

[Kassc22 0]

Homer. Do you want all shootings declared acts of terrorism or just those where the shooter shouts allahu akbar?

Any act of murder based directed on strangers or otherwise innocent people based on some sort of warped ideological motivation is terror.

How would you define it?

I tried looking up any other article that says anything about this shooter having anti government manifestos, or published anti government messaging by him and I couldn't find anything. That huffpo article makes it seem as if this guy is a tea party/ libertarian/anarchist. Can you please point me toward those articles that support this? I am being serious here not snippy or anything. I honestly can't find any.

I don't recall that I said he was of any particular political persuasion. I may have offered such a stereotype as example though.

For all I know,he is a Muslim with a particular fetish for cops instead of just civilians.

Regardless, why does he get so much less coverage from Fox?

You offered up the article. Did you read it? Its whole point was Fox was ignoring terrorism by an American because it was aimed at the government and promoting Islamic terrorism aimed at American citizens. If that wasn't your point then why use that article? If there is no back up documentation then its just an opinion piece and pretty worthless. We all know the liberal opinion of Fox.

[WarTim 3,456]

Homer. Do you want all shootings declared acts of terrorism or just those where the shooter shouts allahu akbar?

Well done Sir.

[autigeremt 6,560]

What difference does it make?

[AURaptor 1,121]

FOX reports the actual news Liberals wish we didn't know.

That's the sole reason why the Left hate FOX.

That, and because people actually WATCH the FOX network, and not so much msnbc.

[TheBlueVue 177]

FOX reports the actual news Liberals wish we didn't know.

That's the sole reason why the Left hate FOX.

That, and because people actually WATCH the FOX network, and not so much msnbc.

Liberals try their best to dismiss FOX News as an agency with an agenda which, in their view, is wrongly telling viewers what to believe. They don't seem to understand why FOX is so popular. FOX's popularity stems from their broadcasts simply confirming what the general public already believes and cant find in reports from the MSM. People are onto the fact that the MSM is taking its talking points directly from the WH and is about as independent as Pravda was at the height of the Soviet Union's Communist rule.

[TheBlueVue 177]

Its quite amazing so many are so determined to defend a "religion" whose prophet was a mass murderer and a pedophile. There are well over 100 versus in the Koran that promote the killing of Christians and Jews over co-existing with them peacefully.

Just to clarify, I am not defending any particular religion, particularly the ones based on documents like the Bible or the Koran.

Clearly, either has the capability to produce terrorists who act on the basis of those sacred documents.

While it is true that Islam is currently the primary problem as far as that is concerned, it is clear that Christians have exhibited the same sort of propensity in the past. There is nothing unique about the writings in the Koran. Similar stuff is found in the Old Testament.

To claim that Islam has a unique propensity to produce violence is to claim that anyone who is Muslim has that propensity. That is is simply not true. In fact, it is reflective of the same xenophobic mind set the terrorists espouse.

I find it amazing that you cannot seem to grasp the point. You clearly are being informed by your fear and hatred instead of your intellect.

Its quite amazing so many are so determined to defend a "religion" whose prophet was a mass murderer and a pedophile. There are well over 100 versus in the Koran that promote the killing of Christians and Jews over co-existing with them peacefully.

Just to clarify, I am not defending any particular religion, particularly the ones based on documents like the Bible or the Koran.

Clearly, either has the capability to produce terrorists who act on the basis of those sacred documents.

While it is true that Islam is currently the primary problem as far as that is concerned, it is clear that Christians have exhibited the same sort of propensity in the past. There is nothing unique about the writings in the Koran. Similar stuff is found in the Old Testament.

To claim that Islam has a unique propensity to produce violence is to claim that anyone who is Muslim has that propensity. That is is simply not true. In fact, it is reflective of the same xenophobic mind set the terrorists espouse.

I find it amazing that you cannot seem to grasp the point. You clearly are being informed by your fear and hatred instead of your intellect.

You keep harping on the Bible's capability of producing terrorists...PLEASE bring ONE to my attention that is completely subjugating its women, subjecting them to genital mutilation, that allows honor killing of its own children and actually promotes the death sentence for apostasy. You obviously know NOTHING about the Bible. The main prophet of New Testament Christianity is Jesus Christ and the one simple thing he taught was, 'Love thy neighbor as thyself" Islam brazenly teaches its believers to NOT take Christians or Jews as their friends. Muhammed, the Prophet of Islam, was a mass murderer and a pedophile and you ignorantly continue to make comparisons to Christianity. The guy was running a crime syndicate from day one to TAKE what he wanted by force which included beheading non-believers. The reason the beheading angle is so newsworthy is because it is so characteristic of lslam. Please tell me you're NOT this obtuse!

Please note my statements highlighted above, which presumably, you are responding to .

Are you asking me to reference that history?

Really?

Yes I am and I would request that you specifically outline the timeline. Once you've established that your examples are at least a 1000 years old please explain how they compare and are relevant to modern civilization. Your excuses for Islamic extremism are extremely weak sauce.

[homersapien 11,347]

Its quite amazing so many are so determined to defend a "religion" whose prophet was a mass murderer and a pedophile. There are well over 100 versus in the Koran that promote the killing of Christians and Jews over co-existing with them peacefully.

Just to clarify, I am not defending any particular religion, particularly the ones based on documents like the Bible or the Koran.

Clearly, either has the capability to produce terrorists who act on the basis of those sacred documents.

While it is true that Islam is currently the primary problem as far as that is concerned, it is clear that Christians have exhibited the same sort of propensity in the past. There is nothing unique about the writings in the Koran. Similar stuff is found in the Old Testament.

To claim that Islam has a unique propensity to produce violence is to claim that anyone who is Muslim has that propensity. That is is simply not true. In fact, it is reflective of the same xenophobic mind set the terrorists espouse.

I find it amazing that you cannot seem to grasp the point. You clearly are being informed by your fear and hatred instead of your intellect.

Its quite amazing so many are so determined to defend a "religion" whose prophet was a mass murderer and a pedophile. There are well over 100 versus in the Koran that promote the killing of Christians and Jews over co-existing with them peacefully.

Just to clarify, I am not defending any particular religion, particularly the ones based on documents like the Bible or the Koran.

Clearly, either has the capability to produce terrorists who act on the basis of those sacred documents.

While it is true that Islam is currently the primary problem as far as that is concerned, it is clear that Christians have exhibited the same sort of propensity in the past. There is nothing unique about the writings in the Koran. Similar stuff is found in the Old Testament.

To claim that Islam has a unique propensity to produce violence is to claim that anyone who is Muslim has that propensity. That is is simply not true. In fact, it is reflective of the same xenophobic mind set the terrorists espouse.

I find it amazing that you cannot seem to grasp the point. You clearly are being informed by your fear and hatred instead of your intellect.

You keep harping on the Bible's capability of producing terrorists...PLEASE bring ONE to my attention that is completely subjugating its women, subjecting them to genital mutilation, that allows honor killing of its own children and actually promotes the death sentence for apostasy. You obviously know NOTHING about the Bible. The main prophet of New Testament Christianity is Jesus Christ and the one simple thing he taught was, 'Love thy neighbor as thyself" Islam brazenly teaches its believers to NOT take Christians or Jews as their friends. Muhammed, the Prophet of Islam, was a mass murderer and a pedophile and you ignorantly continue to make comparisons to Christianity. The guy was running a crime syndicate from day one to TAKE what he wanted by force which included beheading non-believers. The reason the beheading angle is so newsworthy is because it is so characteristic of lslam. Please tell me you're NOT this obtuse!

Please note my statements highlighted above, which presumably, you are responding to .

Are you asking me to reference that history?

Really?

Yes I am and I would request that you specifically outline the timeline. Once you've established that your examples are at least a 1000 years old please explain how they compare and are relevant to modern civilization. Your excuses for Islamic extremism are extremely weak sauce.

You assume the temporal aspects of Christian terrorism have anything to do with my point. They don't.

I am not arguing that modern Christianity is no different from modern Islam in generating extremist terrorists. That obviously not true. Presently, Islam is much worse in both qualitative and quantitative terrorism.

I am arguing against the idea that there is something unique about the dogma or writings contained in any particular religion - in this case Islam - that makes that religion more or less prone to violent confrontation than any other.

The proof in the case of Christianity resides in it's history. The holy texts and the beliefs of Christianity were warped to justify genocide in numerous incidents. The people who did that did so on the same bible that exists today.

So what, if anything, changed? Can it be the aspects of that change had nothing to do with the actual biblical texts?

And even today - while you don't have large movements - you most certainly have individuals who perpetuate smaller acts of terrorism in the name of their religion (Christianity) based on the bible.

So before you simply dismiss Islam as inherently one of violence because of the Koran you need to consider the (0lder) history of similar religions like Christianity. Maybe the evolution away from taking primitive documents so seriously lies outside of the documents themselves. Perhaps Islam has no less capacity to change than Christianity, given equal time.

Regardless, IMO, you assign way too much power to such primitive texts if you seriously think all 1.2 billion Muslims represent a common threat to us.

[homersapien 11,347]

But if you really must have some examples of "Christian terrorism" here's a list that even meets your temporal requirements:

http://www.alternet.org/tea-party-and-right/10-worst-terror-attacks-extreme-christians-and-far-right-white-men

[Kassc22 0]

But if you really must have some examples of "Christian terrorism" here's a list that even meets your temporal requirements:

http://www.alternet....right-white-men

In which one of those examples did the perpetrator claim to be doing his crime in the name of God? Which one claimed that the Bible justified it? Which one of those organized an army and tried to take over a country in the name of God and the Bible? Oh and I find it very ironic that Eric Holder was willing to call the second example in number 1 “an act of terrorism, an act of hatred", yet characterized the Ft. Hood Shooting as "workplace violence". My moms cousin was there that day. He was getting ready to ship out and took shelter under a desk along with another soldier just feet from the shooter. I promise he doesn't see it as workplace violence.

[homersapien 11,347]

But if you really must have some examples of "Christian terrorism" here's a list that even meets your temporal requirements:

http://www.alternet....right-white-men

In which one of those examples did the perpetrator claim to be doing his crime in the name of God? Which one claimed that the Bible justified it? Which one of those organized an army and tried to take over a country in the name of God and the Bible? Oh and I find it very ironic that Eric Holder was willing to call the second example in number 1 “an act of terrorism, an act of hatred", yet characterized the Ft. Hood Shooting as "workplace violence". My moms cousin was there that day. He was getting ready to ship out and took shelter under a desk along with another soldier just feet from the shooter. I promise he doesn't see it as workplace violence.

Are you trying to suggest that Christian terrorism doesn't exist?

[Kassc22 0]

But if you really must have some examples of "Christian terrorism" here's a list that even meets your temporal requirements:

http://www.alternet....right-white-men

In which one of those examples did the perpetrator claim to be doing his crime in the name of God? Which one claimed that the Bible justified it? Which one of those organized an army and tried to take over a country in the name of God and the Bible? Oh and I find it very ironic that Eric Holder was willing to call the second example in number 1 “an act of terrorism, an act of hatred", yet characterized the Ft. Hood Shooting as "workplace violence". My moms cousin was there that day. He was getting ready to ship out and took shelter under a desk along with another soldier just feet from the shooter. I promise he doesn't see it as workplace violence.

Are you trying to suggest that Christian terrorism doesn't exist?

In the examples you gave? Yes. I don't see the links to Christianity that are comparable to what is known as Islamic terrorism. With the Islamic terrorism it is always connected back to the koran or allah. The excuse given is always because allah said so or the koran said so. Kill the infidel and all that jazz. With the examples you just posted the author chooses to capitalize Christian Right like its a religion. There are no examples of the perp saying it was due to a verse in the Bible or because God or Jesus taught this is how to deal with unbelievers. Jesus and God in my experience say Christians should witness (talk) to non believers and carry the good news. Tell them Christ died for them on the cross. Not threaten to cut off their head if they don't convert to Christianity. Christianity is all about free will, not forced conversion.

Do you know of any Christian nation who are currently fighting a war in order to force the conversion of a population into Christianity? I don't. If you do please inform me of it. I am open minded and waiting. I have nothing against muslims who wish to be peaceful. I know they exist, Dr. Qanta Ahmed is prime example. If the interpretation of the Koran that she uses is the interpretation of the majority of Muslims then Islam is indeed a religion of peace. If the interpretation used by the most visible Muslims is the correct then it is a "religion" of terror. Therein lies the problem with those who wish to paint Christians as terrorists. If there is terrorism in Christianity it is like looking for a needle in a haystack. You can't swing a cat without finding terrorism in islam.

So again, where is the proof that your examples were done in the name of Christianity?

[AUFAN78 3,889]

crickets

[AUDub 11,131]

crickets

Homer hasn't been back to reply. If you don't have anything constructive to add...

[AUDub 11,131]

Kass. Are you not familiar with the Army of God? This list is riddled with these fools.

[AUFAN78 3,889]

crickets

Homer hasn't been back to reply. If you don't have anything constructive to add...

Similar to Itch in another thread where Kass tore him a new one, I can see why. :-\ I mean, why even bother?

[AUDub 11,131]

crickets

Homer hasn't been back to reply. If you don't have anything constructive to add...

Similar to Itch in another thread where Kass tore him a new one, I can see why. :-\/>

Contrary to what you might think, we have real lives away from the forum.

[AUFAN78 3,889]

Spare me the 3rd grade soliloquy. Is this itch in Ben's clothing?

[Kassc22 0]

Kass. Are you not familiar with the Army of God? This list is riddled with these fools.

Yes Ben, I am slightly familiar with them. The problem with the examples that Homer put up is that these people who are accused have either been praised by the Army of God ( I don't see that as counting. Westboro has praised people who killed soldiers in some of their twisted beliefs) or has a tie to the Army of God. None of these say they were carried out by the Army of God, making it more of a case of talking the talk but not walking the walk. Its also only on abortion which is not an issue restricted to Christians. They come the closest of any of them, however.

[AUDub 11,131]

Spare me the 3rd grade soliloquy. Is this itch in Ben's clothing?

Haters gonna hate

[AUDub 11,131]

Kass. Are you not familiar with the Army of God? This list is riddled with these fools.

Yes Ben, I am slightly familiar with them. The problem with the examples that Homer put up is that these people who are accused have either been praised by the Army of God ( I don't see that as counting. Westboro has praised people who killed soldiers in some of their twisted beliefs) or has a tie to the Army of God. None of these say they were carried out by the Army of God, making it more of a case of talking the talk but not walking the walk. Its also only on abortion which is not an issue restricted to Christians. They come the closest of any of them, however.

Shelley Shannon and John Salvi are members.

Copypasta from wiki on their terrorist activities:

The earliest documented incidence of the Army of God being involved with anti-abortion activity occurred in 1982. Three men associated with the organization held Hector Zevallos, an abortion doctor, and his wife, Rosalee Jean, hostage. The hostages were later released unharmed.[3] The "East Coast division" of the AOG claimed responsibility when three men, including Michael Bray, planted bombs at seven abortion clinics in Maryland, Virginia, and Washington D.C. in 1985.[4]

The AOG claimed responsibility for Eric Robert Rudolph's 1997 nail bombing of abortion clinics in Atlanta and Birmingham as well as an Atlanta lesbian bar.[5]

Clayton Waagner, claiming to act on the part of the "Virginia Dare Chapter" of the AOG, mailed over 500 letters containing white powder to 280 abortion providers in 2001. The letters claimed that the powder was anthrax; though it was not identified as such, the tactic took advantage of the public's fear of biological warfare after the recent real anthrax attacks.[6][7]

The group is also associated with a number of murders of abortion providers. Some of these murders claimed association with the AOG; in other cases, while the killer expressed no affiliation with the group, the AOG has lionized their acts and taken up their cause.

Copypasta from wiki on their justification:

AOG supports the Second Defensive Action Statement, as produced by the Defenders of the Defenders of Life, which reads:[8]

We the undersigned, declare the justice of taking all Godly action necessary, including the use of force, to defend innocent human life (born and unborn). We proclaim that whatever force is legitimate to defend the life of a born child is legitimate to defend the life of an unborn child.

We declare and affirm that if in fact Paul Hill did kill or wound abortionist John Britton, and accomplices James Barrett and Mrs. Barrett, his actions are morally justified if they were necessary for the purpose of defending innocent human life. Under these conditions, Paul Hill should be acquitted of all charges against him.

Hill was head of a precursor organization called Defensive Action, which issued signed statements to members of Congress in the early 1990s expressing similar sentiments about "killing the killers".

[Kassc22 0]

Kass. Are you not familiar with the Army of God? This list is riddled with these fools.

Yes Ben, I am slightly familiar with them. The problem with the examples that Homer put up is that these people who are accused have either been praised by the Army of God ( I don't see that as counting. Westboro has praised people who killed soldiers in some of their twisted beliefs) or has a tie to the Army of God. None of these say they were carried out by the Army of God, making it more of a case of talking the talk but not walking the walk. Its also only on abortion which is not an issue restricted to Christians. They come the closest of any of them, however.

Shelley Shannon and John Salvi are members.

Copypasta from wiki on their terrorist activities:

The earliest documented incidence of the Army of God being involved with anti-abortion activity occurred in 1982. Three men associated with the organization held Hector Zevallos, an abortion doctor, and his wife, Rosalee Jean, hostage. The hostages were later released unharmed.[3] The "East Coast division" of the AOG claimed responsibility when three men, including Michael Bray, planted bombs at seven abortion clinics in Maryland, Virginia, and Washington D.C. in 1985.[4]

The AOG claimed responsibility for Eric Robert Rudolph's 1997 nail bombing of abortion clinics in Atlanta and Birmingham as well as an Atlanta lesbian bar.[5]

Clayton Waagner, claiming to act on the part of the "Virginia Dare Chapter" of the AOG, mailed over 500 letters containing white powder to 280 abortion providers in 2001. The letters claimed that the powder was anthrax; though it was not identified as such, the tactic took advantage of the public's fear of biological warfare after the recent real anthrax attacks.[6][7]

The group is also associated with a number of murders of abortion providers. Some of these murders claimed association with the AOG; in other cases, while the killer expressed no affiliation with the group, the AOG has lionized their acts and taken up their cause.

Copypasta from wiki on their justification:

AOG supports the Second Defensive Action Statement, as produced by the Defenders of the Defenders of Life, which reads:[8]

We the undersigned, declare the justice of taking all Godly action necessary, including the use of force, to defend innocent human life (born and unborn). We proclaim that whatever force is legitimate to defend the life of a born child is legitimate to defend the life of an unborn child.

We declare and affirm that if in fact Paul Hill did kill or wound abortionist John Britton, and accomplices James Barrett and Mrs. Barrett, his actions are morally justified if they were necessary for the purpose of defending innocent human life. Under these conditions, Paul Hill should be acquitted of all charges against him.

Hill was head of a precursor organization called Defensive Action, which issued signed statements to members of Congress in the early 1990s expressing similar sentiments about "killing the killers".

Right, I read that and like I said its as close as any of the examples come to being terrorists using the claim of being Christians. They are terrorists, but I would label them anti abortion terrorists. The only thing they are concerned with is abortion. They are not trying to convert anyone to Christianity nor are they saying that they are following the teachings of Jesus by doing what they are doing. I looked all over the internet and finally found a so called "manual" written by these people. It is crazy and sickening in the way they twist and pervert scriptures but they never claim they are doing it for Christianity. That is the difference between islamic terrorists and the Army of God. Islamic terrorists are doing it in the name of allah or to force people into conversion. They are concerned only with people not following the koran and shariah law. The aog is only concerned with abortion.