Robert Dear is a Christian Terrorist

originally posted by: infolurker
a reply to: theantediluvian

Ah yes, the "Rhetoric"

Let's hear your solutions, maybe with "hate speech" laws against groups you disagree with?

The problem stems from the press, they have strayed in their duty to honestly report facts even going as far as going to court for the right the lie on air. The first thing we need to do is to reign in the big media. Put some guidelines down that limits the opinions they can spew and focuses it more on facts. And we can't allow them to lie anymore. It is not the role of members of the media to call for genocide against Muslims, or to edit 911 tapes to get a bigger reaction. It's their job to report facts.

a reply to: theantediluvian

Ok, youre worried about gays i get it. We are never going to be like the middle east concerning that issue, unless muslim apologist dems allow their ideals to come here. If you want to think the U.S. populous of christian boogey men will ever allow that to happen then go ahead, but youre severely paranoid.

There are way more pressing issues going on, and a whole other set of rules that might make your nightmares come true if you dont start paying attention and stop making excuses for the real terrorists whom admittedly wish to take over the world.

originally posted by: sociolpath

originally posted by: stormbringer1701
he also said the govt was using grammar to control people's thoughts. in short he was as crazy as a june bug. he would have fit in perfectly in some of the subforums of this site. That hardly makes him a christian terrorist.

Actually years ago, there was a member who came on here who thought the government was using grammar to control peoples thoughts.

The open minded and understanding members of this site ridiculed him to further frustration.

He later went on to shooting a policion in Tucson AZ.

Diagnosed schizophrenic.

People forget this stuff so quick.

Props to anyone with a memory who can link one of his threads. It's a sad story and sad to see how insensitive ppl can be on here.

I remember him. he had whacked out youtube videos too.

it was thought to be the same guy, as the same things were said.

crazy hey...

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
a reply to: theantediluvian

But you called him a Christian Terrorist o the one hand and now say "violent extremism isn't the exclusive domain..." You are confusing me. The cab driver thread was mine, by the way.

See my ETA regarding "Christian Terrorist." I will look harder, but I haven't really seen that a whole lot so far.

Sorry it took so long to get back around to replying.

As I stated earlier, the use of "Christian terrorist" was deliberately incendiary and in hindsight, a bit polemic. Not that doing so should be any more controversial than specifying "Muslim terrorist" and in my opinion, there's no reason that either should be but I knew it would be nonetheless.

I don't feel that there's a conflict between saying that extremism isn't the exclusive domain of any one religion and calling a Christian terrorist a "Christian terrorist" or a Muslim terrorist a "Muslim terrorist" if the terrorist(s) in question are primarily motivated by religious extremism. To me it's just two different varieties of religious extremists and attaching the additional label of Christian or Muslim is simply a way of specifying which group of nuts I'm talking about. For the record, I've also taken some heat in the last month for referring to a couple of Pagans who had a plot to bomb and shoot up churches and synagogues as would be terrorists.

It seems to me that the problem might be that as a whole, the masses have a problem with a religion + "terrorist" used to label anyone without either intending it to be or perceiving it as an indictment of an entire religion due in no small part to the politicization of words that aren't epithets or deliberately denigrating.

So in that respect, I would say that I was also making a secondary statement about political correctness which I feel is used to shield extremism.

originally posted by: aethertek
Just a bit of perspective as this latest atrocity did not occur in a vacuum.

10 of the Worst Terror Attacks by Extreme Christians and Far-Right White Men
www.alternet.org...

Oh & dispense with the "all christian, all conservative" straw-man BS because no one is saying that.

Also to completely deny that there exists within this country a far right theocratic political & social movement that is dangerous to our democracy is delusion at best.

K~

Alternet's sister site is Salon and they are posting articles using each other as sources and are one of the worst offenders of political pundit rhetoric spewing right next to the right wing websites being linked to.

Just look at the comment section and ask if anyone really cares what is actually known about the killings?

Robert Dear, “gentle loner”: The New York Times reveals a load of biases in early round of Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood coverage

The entire article is based on complaints made by an alternet writer concerning the lack of focus on the races of the two other victims of the shooting.

Here is another institutional facet to consider: in another article focusing on the (white) Colorado community in mourning, the coverage in the New York Times turned it into a lengthy story about the white male victim, Officer Garrett Swasey. It barely managed to mention that Dear had killed two others, both people of color.

To be fair, it had elsewhere identified the victims in a stand-along post. Jennifer Markovsky, an Asian woman, and Ke’Arre M. Stewart, a Black man, were at the clinic to be supportive of others seeking services there. They were also parents, and directly connected to the military. Should it matter that they were people of color? According to Jenn Fang of the blog, Reappropriate, the answer is yes. For “what often goes missing in the fight to preserve reproductive rights for American women, ” she writes, “is that this is not just about reproductive justice; it — like so many issues — intersects with race.” She goes on to explain that an attack on Planned Parenthood is an attack on poor and working class families of color, which are the primary groups utilzing their services. Race, gender, and class intersect powerfully at this site.

By effectively omitting Markovsky and Stewart from an article focused on the panegyrics of collective mourning, the New York Times uncritically propagates a cultural stance whereby it is understood that non-white and working-class lives matter…less. Without directly saying so, it is imposing a racialized hierarchy of loss on national narratives of trauma, one that reflexively humanizes a “gentle” white terrorist–Robert Lewis Dear–while erasing the non-white victims.

Just compare this to the actual NYTimes article about the killer's past and explain to me how they are not trying to establish a narrative that fits what they have been writing about all day everyday for the last few months?

This is insane!

Apparently everyone wants to vent their emotions and [explitive] the known facts because who needs those?

-FBB

a reply to: theantediluvian

At this point I'm starting to think you used the title 'christian terrorist' for stars and flags. From your own words, i don't think even you beleive it but knew it would stir controversy.

All of your stars and flags prove it, there are plenty of libs here on ats who foam with hate and glee when they see a title like that. They love mass killings so long as it could possibly mean someone who claims to be christian did it, even if there are no facts backing it up. We see tons of anti christian hate memes on facebook and other outlets all over the world while they secretly sit there in a sick state of satisfaction from lives lost. The hate is surely alive and thriving, and it isnt from christians.

a reply to: FriedBabelBroccoli

Bla bla bla bla bla,,,race, does absolutely nothing to refute what I posted.
Just because one guy gets his knickers in a knot over perceived racial insensitivity doesn't invalidate the facts of political violence in this country.

Try harder at your diversion attempts because that last one sucked.

K~

a reply to: Wookiep

I think the possibility is there but don't think it was a huge driving factor.
I think the talking heads just get people talking the talk of what ever the issue is but doesn't make them walk the walk.
When I first said that comment btw it was more rhetorical, should have made it more clear.

Also if libs are just waiting around for Christians then cons are foaming at the mouth for more Islamic attacks.

a reply to: Wookiep

Are you working your way down the list of spurious personal attacks? This is actually something I'm concerned about but it's obvious that you're not but perhaps you'll reconsider if you have more of an idea what leads me to my concern?

read my posts here and here

When I get an opportunity, I'll put together an infographic showing these connections and maybe the number of due paying members some of these groups have and the sizes of the congregations/wealth of some of the hate preacher's ministries.

originally posted by: aethertek
a reply to: FriedBabelBroccoli

Bla bla bla bla bla,,,race, does absolutely nothing to refute what I posted.
Just because one guy gets his knickers in a knot over perceived racial insensitivity doesn't invalidate the facts of political violence in this country.

Try harder at your diversion attempts because that last one sucked.

K~

I was pointing out that your source in general pushes a hard political line.

It is no attempt at diversion but go ahead and project whatever fantasies you have, don't let the evidence that does or doesn't exist stop you.

-FBB

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: Wookiep


Also if libs are just waiting around for Christians then cons are foaming at the mouth for more Islamic attacks.

That's a pretty sick thing to say, i guess if you were on one side, one would say that kind of thing. Im glad i want no part of either 'side'. (Of politics) Sick is sick. This pp guy was a sick # and so are the multitude of daily bastards beheading people and throwing gay people off of roofs. Etc etc etc.

a reply to: theantediluvian

I think your thread is in extremely poor taste, and I have no desire or reason to respond further to you, in this thread at least. Have fun!

a reply to: Wookiep

So it is sick to say that cons are just waiting for attacks but not to say libs are???

You said libs were foaming at the mouth for this kind of attack, guess the opposite can't be said huh.

originally posted by: Wookiep

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: Wookiep


Also if libs are just waiting around for Christians then cons are foaming at the mouth for more Islamic attacks.

That's a pretty sick thing to say, i guess if you were on one side, one would say that kind of thing. Im glad i want no part of either 'side'. (Of politics) Sick is sick. This pp guy was a sick # and so are the multitude of daily bastards beheading people and throwing gay people off of roofs. Etc etc etc.

I hate to be the one to break it to you but you're clearly on a "side" when you say the following:

Ill give you the fact that many christians dont agree with 'gayness', but i challenge you...how many christian communities would call for the death of gays? Not many, and if you say otherwise, you are lying period.

The liberal objective? Hate all white, conservatives and christians and make them all terrorists or put them all to death. All while defending muslims because they are 'peaceful'. That's just insane. Wake up!

a reply to: Sremmos80

Its sick for either side to say. I dont play that game of politics, but it seems you do. Two wrongs dont make a right, grow up.

a reply to: Wookiep

Then why did you say it? You are the one that originally said millions of people are just waiting for this type of attack.

If it helps you sleep at night keep saying you don't play the game but you clearly do. Only in my opinion of course. Sure you don't agree with it.

a reply to: theantediluvian

Just because i dont ahere to nor follow liberal politics does not make me a rebub either. Both parties are screwed, it just so happens that the dems and their social games are screwing us the most atm.

a reply to: Sremmos80

I didnt say it, i just witness it from libs every single day. I didnt make this thread, i dont make hateful acusations against christians for political reasons, dont twist my words bro!

a reply to: Wookiep

Did you get trumped and someone hacked your ats?

It seems there are a lot of seething 'liberals' foaming at the mouth, waiting for any incident to give an opprotunity to slam white christians, especially 'right wing' ones, its almost like some sick obsession.

So which is it, is it sick to say this or not.
How is this different then me saying that conservatives are just waiting for more Islamic attacks...

a reply to: Sremmos80

If you want to think repubs are foaming for a mulsim attack go for it, if that will make you feel less guilty. There is a terrorist attack by muslims nearly everyday, so I see no foaming glee, just a desire for it to stop, not so much from lefties, no idea why tho.

I do see foaming libs whenever someone might claim to be 'christian' commit an atrocity. Why is that? i dunno! I guess they hate repubs so bad they think all repubs are christians? Thats sick.l

Foaming hate like a rabbid dog for political reasons is wrong from either side. I just dont see that from the right, but i see libs doing it everyday. Like i said tho, two wrongs dont make a right.