Here’s how far-right Christians incited stochastic terrorism at a Colorado Springs PP

a reply to: infolurker

Why are all mass murderers Democrats?

The all mass murders are Democrats is just right wing BS. here is some of the known Republican killers.
Eric Rudolph, the Olympic Park bomber, killed one (and one indirectly) and wounded 111 others. His motive for the bombing, according to Rudolph’s own admission, was political. He also had bombed an abortion clinic in an Atlanta suburb, killing 2 and injuring six. Extremist chatter on the Internet while he was evading capture praised him as “a hero.”

In 1993 Michael Frederick Griffin murdered Dr. David Gunn in Pensacola, Florida. He waited outside Gunn’s clinic and shot him three times, yelling, “Don’t kill any more babies.” He is currently serving a term of life in prison.

A little more than a year later, Paul Hill shot Dr. Bayard Britton in the head with a 12-gauge shotgun. Hill also killed Britton’s bodyguard, retired Air Force lieutenant James Barrett, 74, and wounded Barrett’s wife June, a retired nurse. Hill bragged that “… no innocent babies are going to be killed in that clinic today.”

Anti-abortion terrorist John Salvi carried out two fatal attacks on two abortion clinics in Brookline, Massachusetts in December 1994. Receptionists Shannon Lowney and Lee Ann Nichols, were killed in the attacks. He escaped but was captured after another clinic attack in which he killed 2 more receptionists on March 19, 1996.

Anti-immigrant vigilantes murdered Raul Flores Jr and his 9-year-old daughter Brisenia at point-blank range in their Tucson, Arizona home in 2009. A month earlier another young girl had died in a gun massacre in which anti-immigrant protesters were implicated.

Militia wanna-be Bruce Turnidge went ape# after Barack Obama was elected in 2008. He and his son, Joshua, succumbed to NRA hype and fear. They built and planted a bomb at a bank in Woodburn, Oregon on Dec. 12th, killing 2 police officers and wounding two others.

And let's not forget the Oklahoma city bombing.

Sorry, not buying it.

The alleged shooter is a nut job, period.

Did the heavil edited PP "baby parts" videos help? No, but that's about it.

originally posted by: FriedBabelBroccoli
a reply to: aethertek

So you think that the results, or effectiveness of the messages, is what defines stochastic terrorism?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No it is exactly as described, dog whistle veiled references that incite violence.
Like,,,,,
Palin: "Don't Retreat, Instead - RELOAD!" Sarah Palin posted a list of House Democrats who voted for health care reform with crosshairs aimed at their locations.
or,,,
Fox News contributor Dick Morris asserted that because President Obama's policies are "internationalist ... [t]hose crazies in Montana who say, 'We're going to kill ATF agents because the U.N.'s going to take over' -- well, they're beginning to have a case."
or,,,
Erickson: "At what point do the people ... march down to their state legislator's house, pull him outside, and beat him to a bloody pulp?" In a March 31, 2009, post on RedState.com
mediamatters.org...
Here indulge yourself,,,
www.addictinginfo.org...

I never got that from the article but agree that it is prominent in both 'left' and 'right' media. For example all the rhetoric about conservatives who are denying climate change or action on climate change are responsible for the deaths of billions of humans in the future.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes but those on the left just shake their heads at their scientific ignorance.
What they don't don't do is start talking about exercising their second amendment rights & watering the tree of liberty from time to time.
Because "oh we have to take back our country from the polluters".
But you'll hear that crap from morans(sic) who can't have their precious wasteful incandescent lights.
They'll rant about liberty & government oppression that must be resisted at all cost.
-FBB

K~

If the shooter was a recluse who lived in a remote isolated mountain cabin with no running water or electricity, how much media could he have been exposed to? Portable AM/FM radios don't even work well in many mountain areas.

Something current...
“Violence is never the answer, but we must start pointing out who is the real culprit. The true instigator of this violence and all violence at any Planned Parenthood facility is Planned Parenthood themselves. Violence begets violence. So Planned Parenthood: YOU STOP THE VIOLENCE INSIDE YOUR WALLS.”
www.rawstory.com...

See PP brought the violence on themselves because they're violent evil doers.
Never mind the fact that PP is actually medical practitioners providing health care to millions of American woman.
No no they're violent instigators.

You see how she desperately tries to compare the victim(PP) to the real perpetrator of violence the shooter.
She condones his actions because PP brought it on themselves so they're responsible, after all "violence begets violence".

FOR THOSE STILL CONFUSED WHAT SHE SAID IS STOCHASTIC TERRORISM

K~

originally posted by: NthOther

It's called "taking a jab".

I'm sorry I hurt your feelings.

No that was just being an A-hole for no reason. Which is your choice but at least call a spade a spade and own what you say.

originally posted by: NthOther
a reply to: Gryphon66

It's called "taking a jab".

I'm sorry I hurt your feelings.

Actually, it's called an ignorant, hypocritical and meaningless personal attack.

The fact of the matter is that there are no "atheist" terrorists, and implying such is simply a desperate attempt at "I know you are, but what am I?"

/shrug

originally posted by: Gryphon66

Actually, it's called an ignorant, hypocritical and meaningless personal attack.

Au contraire. If we were to judge by internet rhetoric alone, no one hates Christians more than Atheists (of the capital-A variety--you know who you are).

This would make them very susceptible to the influence of stochastic terrorism directed at Christians.

It was just a joke, but now that I think about it, it's actually a quite relevant juxtaposition.

originally posted by: NthOther

Au contraire. If we were to judge by internet rhetoric alone, no one hates Christians more than Atheists (of the capital-A variety--you know who you are).

But I thought it was the Muslims???

Or the socialist/communists???

Or the Satanists???

Or you just love to play a victim.

originally posted by: NthOther

originally posted by: Gryphon66

Actually, it's called an ignorant, hypocritical and meaningless personal attack.

Au contraire. If we were to judge by internet rhetoric alone, no one hates Christians more than Atheists (of the capital-A variety--you know who you are).

This would make them very susceptible to the influence of stochastic terrorism directed at Christians.

It was just a joke, but now that I think about it, it's actually a quite relevant juxtaposition.

An empty gesture at imaginary statistics only confirms one thing: your own bias.

That, and it signifies a paltry attempt to side-step and avoid responsibility for your own ill-considered rhetoric deployed earlier.

There are no atheist terrorists; if you can't name any, you're merely, as stated, trying to side-step the real issue under discussion here by tossing in all the standard logical fallacies -- ad hom, red herring, appeal to popular opinion, etc.

So, atheistic American terrorists who have killed Christians (or anyone) in the name of atheism? Got any?

ETA: And please, do not fall back on the old saw about Stalin, Hitler and Pol Pot. That's as inane as bringing up the Crusades.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: NthOther

originally posted by: Gryphon66

Actually, it's called an ignorant, hypocritical and meaningless personal attack.

Au contraire. If we were to judge by internet rhetoric alone, no one hates Christians more than Atheists (of the capital-A variety--you know who you are).

This would make them very susceptible to the influence of stochastic terrorism directed at Christians.

It was just a joke, but now that I think about it, it's actually a quite relevant juxtaposition.

An empty gesture at imaginary statistics only confirms one thing: your own bias.

That, and it signifies a paltry attempt to side-step and avoid responsibility for your own ill-considered rhetoric deployed earlier.

There are no atheist terrorists; if you can't name any, you're merely, as stated, trying to side-step the real issue under discussion here by tossing in all the standard logical fallacies -- ad hom, red herring, appeal to popular opinion, etc.

So, atheistic American terrorists who have killed Christians (or anyone) in the name of atheism? Got any?

ETA: And please, do not fall back on the old saw about Stalin, Hitler and Pol Pot. That's as inane as bringing up the Crusades.

The unabomber.

Tim McVeigh was an agnostic which is pretty damn close to an atheist.

In his letter, McVeigh said he was an agnostic but that he would "improvise, adapt and overcome", if it turned out there was an afterlife. "If I'm going to hell," he wrote, "I'm gonna have a lot of company." His body is to be cremated and his ashes scattered in a secret location.

www.theguardian.com...

originally posted by: Evil_Santa

The unabomber.

Kaczynski is usually considered a serial murderer, not a terrorist, but further ...

17 years after beginning his mail bomb campaign, Kaczynski sent a letter to The New York Times on April 24, 1995 and promised "to desist from terrorism" if the Times or the Washington Post published his manifesto, Industrial Society and Its Future (also called the "Unabomber Manifesto"), in which he argued that his bombings were extreme but necessary to attract attention to the erosion of human freedom necessitated by modern technologies requiring large-scale organization.

Ted Kaczynski

Not a word about undermining Christianity or religion, not a word about spreading the good news of atheism, etc.

a reply to: Deny Arrogance

Pretty close in what way?

Agnostics, in general, say they don't know the truth of gods or the non-existence of gods.

Atheists say they have no belief in gods.

Again, like Kaczynski, did McVeigh kill in the name of "agnosticism"? Was he killing to further some agnostic goal?

ETA: Let's look at it another way ... do we have proof that "anti-abortion rhetoric and positions" are a factor of many American Christian's beliefs?

Or more appropriately, Right Wing Christian Political Activists? That's pretty easy to find, if it's a matter of disagreement.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Where is your proof that nutjob PP shooter acted in the name of chistianity?

He has been labeled a "christian terrorist" by many here at ATS and elsewhere but there is no evidence of it.

If nutjob is a christian terrorist just because he happened to be christian, then McVeigh is an agnostic terrorist by the same definition.

originally posted by: Deny Arrogance
a reply to: Gryphon66

Where is your proof that nutjob PP shooter acted in the name of chistianity?

He has been labeled a "christian terrorist" by many here at ATS and elsewhere but there is no evidence of it.

If nutjob is a christian terrorist just because he happened to be christian, then McVeigh is an agnostic terrorist by the same definition.

Fair enough, semantically you're absolutely accurate.

Now, would you address my question?

Did McVeigh kill for "agnostic principles"? If so, what were they?

Did Dear kill for "Christian (activist) principles, i.e. stopping the "baby murderers" at Planned Parenthood"?

Are you suggesting that there's no connection at all between activist Christianity and the anti-abortion movement?

a reply to: Gryphon66

The guy mailed bombs to people, and you're saying that's not terrorism? Semantics. The manifesto has some things that hint towards atheism, and i know he's said he doesn't believe in anything in some interviews.

cyber.eserver.org...

That said, i did some digging, and this is pretty recent: en.wikipedia.org...

"Hicks had set a banner image on his page to one stating: "I don't deny you your right to believe whatever you'd like; but I have the right to point out it's ignorant and dangerous for as long as your baseless superstitions keep killing people.""

On a personal note: You seem to be completely stuck in the "us vs them" mentality on issues. Take a step back, look at things from all angle and realize that the world isn't black & white.

a reply to: Evil_Santa

Did I say that Kaczynski's acts weren't terrorism? I said he's usually thought of as a serial murderer.

"Things that hint toward atheism"? So a terrorist was being subtle about their intentions and demands? LOL.

Kaczynski was against "Leftism" ... and "industrialization" ... why not post something specific that you think "hints at atheism."

The Chapel Hill murders were over parking spaces, weren't they? How is that associated with atheism again? Hicks was just as vociferous about Gun Rights ... so would you argue that he was a Guns Rights Terrorist as well?

Please spare me your personal critiques, or point to some thing I've actually said.

We're discussing facts, not personal opinions (about each other).

It certainly doesn't help the situation. Neither side is trying to calm the situation, both sides are guilty of propaganda that promotes an unrealistic threat to the listeners/ viewers existence. It's the people who only believe one side and then surround themselves with that media narrative can become dangerous no doubt.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Open the unabomber's manifesto and just search for God as a word.

en.wikipedia.org...

"On February 16, Hicks was indicted by a Durham County grand jury on three counts of first-degree murder and one count of discharging a firearm into an occupied dwelling. Investigators have not ruled out any motives, including religious bias."

Bias can be blinding. You take a person with extreme bias against religious people, add in a side of mental health issues, and toss in a parking space dispute catalyst, and you have the Chapel Hill incident. Would the incident have happened if they weren't outwardly Muslim, and he wasn't such a devout atheist? I highly doubt it.

Your bias is that atheists are free from irrational actions, because there isn't a religious doctrine governing their actions. Yes, atheists are less likely to blow themselves up over their non-religious views, but being non-religious can still be a governed by blinding passion.