Christian terrorists can be stupid, too

[Spence]

These jerkwads got schooled by a church deacon. I love this story.Three Burleson men who belong to a "radical Christian activist group" were in the Johnson County Jail on Friday night after a church deacon caught two of them attempting to ignite an explosive device on Independence Day at a church under construction in north Burleson, authorities said Friday.

Dayton Lee Calaway, 19, and Michael Philip Plaisted Jr., 18, were arrested Wednesday night near the Victory Family Church after they got bogged down in mud as a fleet-footed deacon chased them from the church in the 400 block of Northwest John Jones Drive, police said.
...
An explosive device in a glass container was found propped against the church door. The suspects apparently tried to detonate the device twice before being interrupted by the deacon, police and Burleson Fire Marshal Stacy Singleton said.
...
On Thursday, Jered Michael Ragon, 18, voluntarily went to the police station for questioning after Calaway and Plaisted implicated him, police Detective T. Catron said. Police called a MedStar ambulance because Ragon's feet were burned, and a emergency medical crew treated him at the station.

Ragon had gotten gasoline on his feet as he tried to destroy evidence from the church fire in the field, and his feet were burned, Catron said.

Calaway, Plaisted and Ragon face charges of arson at a place of worship, a first-degree felony that carries a maximum sentence of life in prison, Singleton said.
...
Cmdr. Chris Havens, the Police Department spokesman, said the suspects boasted about belonging to a leaderless group of 10 or 15 who share a belief that society has become too focused on self-improvement and self-gratification and has lost focus on the glorification of God.

"They admit to being Christian and being brought up Christian, but they believe there should be one denomination and one church, not multiple denominations," Havens said.Source (http://www.star-telegram.com/news/story/161625.html)

[CNYSkinFan]

This is impossible. As we know from War Eagle the only religion that leads to terrorism is Islam. This must be the islamic sect of christianity.

[Fathead]

Ok christians, start gathering for the planes. Aleutians for you!

[shally]

These jerkwads got schooled by a church deacon. I love this story.Source (http://www.star-telegram.com/news/story/161625.html)

what was their reason for wanting to torch that particular church ??

[dukeuch]

what was their reason for wanting to torch that particular church ??

Intolerance.

[RedskinsDave]

They'd be cooler if they mocked the way some ferner talks. Ya know, like the King Liberal does.

[lakewinola]

They'd be cooler if they mocked the way some ferner talks. Ya know, like the King Liberal does.

What are you talking about?

[lakewinola]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/07/12/prayer.protest.reut/index.html

[RedskinsDave]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/07/12/prayer.protest.reut/index.html

Relevance?

[RedskinsDave]

What are you talking about?

Go check your daily talking points.

[lakewinola]

Relevance?

The very small portion of nutjobs on the christian right. It is completely tied to the first story in that both groups acted out on the message that theirs was the only true religion.

[lakewinola]

Go check your daily talking points.

So, the relevance of your post was? I still don't get it, it seems like a very random post that has absolutley nothing to do with this thread. Oh, and what talking point have I used here? Are you kidding?

[Spence]

I thought I'd posted a funny little story about some brain-dead terrorists getting their hash handed to them by a li'l ol' church deacon...

[WarEagle]

I thought I'd posted a funny little story about some brain-dead terrorists getting their hash handed to them by a li'l ol' church deacon...

They were a lot of things, but they weren't terrorists. lol.

[akhhorus]

They were a lot of things, but they weren't terrorists. lol.

Terrorist: "One who using violence/terrorism as a means of coercion".

How do they not fit that definition?

[CNYSkinFan]

Terrorist: "One who using violence/terrorism as a means of coercion".

How do they not fit that definition?
because they are christian...and As we know there are no christian terrorists :rolleyes:

[Spence]

If those guys are not terrorists then no one is a terrorist. You don't have to be competent to be a terrorist. Look at these guys (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_pictures/6257388.stm).

[RedskinsDave]

Of course those guys are "terrorists" in the simplest definition but, regardless of your need to play with WarEagle, they certainly are not really.

[WarEagle]

Terrorist: "One who using violence/terrorism as a means of coercion".

How do they not fit that definition?

You might should read the entire article from the Fort Worth paper. Their "bible study group" includes consensual fighting. It's a fight club with a couple of pyros! They set a recycling bin on fire a few weeks ago! The local cops who are throwing around the domestic terrorism line are either angling for Homeland Security money or completely out of their minds. Go read some of the incredulous followup stories, too.

This is truly laughable.

[Spence]

Of course those guys are "terrorists" in the simplest definition but, regardless of your need to play with WarEagle, they certainly are not really.I'm not playing with WarEagle. I leave that to others. Whatever my thoughts about his political views, I think he's made a positive contribution to the forum. I know others don't agree, but we don't always expect a lot of agreement in here, do we?

But I don't understand the problem you and WarEagle have with defining these guys as terrorists. They tried to burn down a church -- without any regard for any people who might be inside -- because they disapprove of it. If that doesn't fit the precise definition of a terrorist, then what does? Would it help you to think of them as terrorists, Dave, if they'd tried to burn down a Catholic church?

[Spence]

Let's just state the obvious: If these guys were Muslims, but had done precisely the same thing to precisely the same people in precisely the same way, everyone would agree they were terrorists. [And CNN and Fox would be running around the clock updates on "their plan to terrorize Christians in the heartland."] I can't imagine any reasonable person would have the nerve to disagree with that.

[akhhorus]

You might should read the entire article from the Fort Worth paper. Their "bible study group" includes consensual fighting. It's a fight club with a couple of pyros! They set a recycling bin on fire a few weeks ago! The local cops who are throwing around the domestic terrorism line are either angling for Homeland Security money or completely out of their minds. Go read some of the incredulous followup stories, too.

This is truly laughable.

Right, just some good old boys reading the bible, fighting each other and setting explosive devices in churches that don't agree with them. :rolleyes:

Of course those guys are "terrorists" in the simplest definition but, regardless of your need to play with WarEagle, they certainly are not really.

Disagree, they fit even a restrictive definition of terrorism-not just the simplest one. Granted, they're not hezbollah, but terrorism is terrorism.

[WarEagle]

Let's just state the obvious: If these guys were Muslims, but had done precisely the same thing to precisely the same people in precisely the same way, everyone would agree they were terrorists. [And CNN and Fox would be running around the clock updates on "their plan to terrorize Christians in the heartland."] I can't imagine any reasonable person would have the nerve to disagree with that.

I think in that case we'd have to consider "state of mind."

[akhhorus]

I think in that case we'd have to consider "state of mind."

No, intention. That's the essence of terrorism. This wasn't some joke, this was an attempted terrorist attack.

[WarEagle]

No, intention. That's the essence of terrorism. This wasn't some joke, this was an attempted terrorist attack.

I know you have the definitions and all, but I'm thinking about a recent weird arson spree in my own county where 4 or 5 volunteer firemen set about torching barns, houses, and other structures over a period of months. They may or may not have hit a church, too. Sometimes it's terrorism, other times it's all about the flames, baby.

They caught the guys, and the chief was horrified!

[Ibleedburgundy]

The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.



http://www.answers.com/topic/terrorism?cat=biz-fin

it´s a fairly vague word. I´m curios what definition the right wingers are using these days and if they think akh and I are using left wing dictionaries LOL.

[CNYSkinFan]

I know you have the definitions and all, but I'm thinking about a recent weird arson spree in my own county where 4 or 5 volunteer firemen set about torching barns, houses, and other structures over a period of months. They may or may not have hit a church, too. Sometimes it's terrorism, other times it's all about the flames, baby.

They caught the guys, and the chief was horrified!
No that is Arson. The volunteer firemen were not trying too make a political or social statement through their acts. The firs dudes who did it wanted to force at least one church to close because of their religious beliefs...

[Biggie]

It's a tactic. They used it. They're terrorists.

[RedskinsDave]

My point, again, is that they are terrorists by its simple definition. They are not really what anyone here should start giving that word over and having it become ambiguous. Terrorists aren't idiot rednecks who can't light up a church frame. Terrorists blow up cars, like Al Queda and the IRA. These clowns are more intimidators. Again, I understand the definition but throwing it out there at idiots like this makes the word softer when using it against the people who are really out to kill many.

[shally]

I'm not playing with WarEagle. I leave that to others. Whatever my thoughts about his political views, I think he's made a positive contribution to the forum. I know others don't agree, but we don't always expect a lot of agreement in here, do we?

But I don't understand the problem you and WarEagle have with defining these guys as terrorists. They tried to burn down a church -- without any regard for any people who might be inside -- because they disapprove of it. If that doesn't fit the precise definition of a terrorist, then what does? Would it help you to think of them as terrorists, Dave, if they'd tried to burn down a Catholic church?

Let's just state the obvious: If these guys were Muslims, but had done precisely the same thing to precisely the same people in precisely the same way, everyone would agree they were terrorists. [And CNN and Fox would be running around the clock updates on "their plan to terrorize Christians in the heartland."] I can't imagine any reasonable person would have the nerve to disagree with that.

i agree with you wholeheartedly.. they are not like the mob, for example, who base their violence primarily on economic goals.. these clowns wanted to take out a church they disagreed with philosophically (even though they couldnt define or spell the word). that makes them terrorists in my book

[shally]

No that is Arson. The volunteer firemen were not trying too make a political or social statement through their acts. The firs dudes who did it wanted to force at least one church to close because of their religious beliefs...

i understand the distinction you are trying to make, using the term, arson.. but i think that intentionally trying to burn down a building whether it is for philosophical reasons, or to collect the insurance, or to just watch it burn--all of them, i think, meet the legal definition of arson...

[akhhorus]

My point, again, is that they are terrorists by its simple definition. They are not really what anyone here should start giving that word over and having it become ambiguous. Terrorists aren't idiot rednecks who can't light up a church frame. Terrorists blow up cars, like Al Queda and the IRA. These clowns are more intimidators. Again, I understand the definition but throwing it out there at idiots like this makes the word softer when using it against the people who are really out to kill many.

Yeah, but the IRA(and other groups) would sometimes plant a bomb, then call the cops with the specific location of where it was just to get the effect of shutting down part of downtown london to cause fear. I don't think there's a blood level before someone goes from intimidation to terrorism. Terrorism is per se Violence(or just the threat of violence) to effect a change.

[shally]

Yeah, but the IRA(and other groups) would sometimes plant a bomb, then call the cops with the specific location of where it was just to get the effect of shutting down part of downtown london to cause fear. I don't think there's a blood level before someone goes from intimidation to terrorism. Terrorism is per se Violence(or just the threat of violence) to effect a change.

and who knows if these moron's skill levels might not improve with practice ?? i doubt it, they would likely have simply blown off more of their appendages-- but you never know.. terrorist skills, like any skill, usually take development and practice

[RedskinsDave]

Yeah, but the IRA(and other groups) would sometimes plant a bomb, then call the cops with the specific location of where it was just to get the effect of shutting down part of downtown london to cause fear. I don't think there's a blood level before someone goes from intimidation to terrorism. Terrorism is per se Violence(or just the threat of violence) to effect a change.

To me it's like the word racist. If it gets thrown around over and over because some schmuck does something that can be squeezed into the definition, the word loses value. I fear a terrorist attack. I do not fear brain dead rubes.

[redskin_rich]

Yeah, but the IRA(and other groups) would sometimes plant a bomb, then call the cops with the specific location of where it was just to get the effect of shutting down part of downtown london to cause fear. I don't think there's a blood level before someone goes from intimidation to terrorism. Terrorism is per se Violence(or just the threat of violence) to effect a change.

What about whoever mailed the anthrax letters or the person who poisoned the Tylenol capsules? Or for that matter, any disgruntled employee that decides to take out their anger by blasting everyone in the office with a shotgun? Is that considered terrorism, even if there is no political or idealogical reasons?

Probably not but the effect is pretty much the same.

[shally]

What about whoever mailed the anthrax letters or the person who poisoned the Tylenol capsules? Or for that matter, any disgruntled employee that decides to take out their anger by blasting everyone in the office with a shotgun? Is that considered terrorism, even if there is no political or idealogical reasons?

Probably not but the effect is pretty much the same.

i think if you are the victim, the impact is about the same.. regardless of the core philosophy of the perps, or their level of competence

[akhhorus]

To me it's like the word racist. If it gets thrown around over and over because some schmuck does something that can be squeezed into the definition, the word loses value. I fear a terrorist attack. I do not fear brain dead rubes.

I understand your argument, but I disagree. I think these guys-no matter how stupid-fit easily into "terrorist" definition. Now if they walked into the church in the middle of sunday service with a bunch of hot dogs strapped to their chest and claimed they were TNT, they would be idiots with barely fit into the definition of terrorist.

What about whoever mailed the anthrax letters or the person who poisoned the Tylenol capsules? Or for that matter, any disgruntled employee that decides to take out their anger by blasting everyone in the office with a shotgun? Is that considered terrorism, even if there is no political or idealogical reasons?

Probably not but the effect is pretty much the same.

The anthrax and tylenol were terrorism, if they had a larger issue(blackmail isn't a terroristic motive). A disgruntled employee blasting away with a shotgun isn't a terrorist. A disgruntled employee calling in a bomb threat until he got a raise or promotion, or to get his job back is a terrorist.