Who burnt the Alabama churches?

The burning down of the 6 churches in Alabama,
Who did it ?
Are there Islamic militants in the U.S?
Its not that hard to believe there is quite a large contingent of muslims in America.
Its good propaganda (on a small scale) for Al jazeera to tell the masses in the Middle East.
Your thoughts please.

Originally posted by Alien DNA
The burning down of the 6 churches in Alabama,
Who did it ?
Are there Islamic militants in the U.S?
Its not that hard to believe there is quite a large contingent of muslims in America.
Its good propaganda (on a small scale) for Al jazeera to tell the masses in the Middle East.
Your thoughts please.

If they were Islamic militants, then why no synagogues? Why only babtist churches? It doesn't make sense.

It is probably just some nut case.

How many Synogogues are there in Alabama? I'm sure not a lot. The people who committed this act wanted to do it to a number of targets and you can't do that with synogogues in the south. Synogogues aren't too common in the U.S., let alone in the south.

[edit on 4-2-2006 by Rickey Gerard Perez]

Attacking places of worship is forbidin in Jihad, as dictated by the Prophet Mohamed and writen in the Quran. Same goes for attacking hospitals, and a few other that I can't remember. I highly doubt it was a terror attack, because they would not be granted an eternity in heaven and they's loose out on the whole 100 virgins deal. Believe it or not there are rules to Jihad. I read it somewherea few hours ago, I'll try and find the link again.

Edit:Almost forgot. I'll bet that this is some sort of hate crime, be it KKK or just a group of dumb rednecks. I do realize that the churches were all different types(ethicity/creed), but I'm still putting my money of hate crimes.



[edit on 4-2-2006 by ReginalBigsby]

Satan will deal with these "fools" in time if they think they are helping "Satan" they are only destroying his work and should be put to justice to "ower" law"

Originally posted by ReginalBigsby
Attacking places of worship is forbidin in Jihad, as dictated by the Prophet Mohamed and writen in the Quran. Same goes for attacking hospitals, and a few other that I can't remember. I highly doubt it was a terror attack, because they would not be granted an eternity in heaven and they's loose out on the whole 100 virgins deal. Believe it or not there are rules to Jihad. I read it somewherea few hours ago, I'll try and find the link again.

Edit:Almost forgot. I'll bet that this is some sort of hate crime, be it KKK or just a group of dumb rednecks. I do realize that the churches were all different types(ethicity/creed), but I'm still putting my money of hate crimes.



[edit on 4-2-2006 by ReginalBigsby]

If its forbidden to attack a place of worship in the quran why were a load of churches bombed in Iraq last week?
The splinter groups from the main Islam belief have become very dangerous with no respect for anybody.

Originally posted by Alien DNA
If its forbidden to attack a place of worship in the quran why were a load of churches bombed in Iraq last week?
The splinter groups from the main Islam belief have become very dangerous with no respect for anybody.

they arent real muslims
as he stated it says in the Quran very clearly to harm or destroy crops,buildings and so on of people who have done no harm

also forgot to add
you will see those people kill hundreds of muslims them selves by blowing up mosque's (and thats more evidnce they arent muslim(

[edit on 4-2-2006 by bodrul]

True, that's another aspect that I forgot to mention. I've been up for over 24 hours. I'm a little absent minded at the moment, and have been for the past few hours. Forgive me, I was going to mention this, but hit the post button without thinking, hehe.

These splinter cells are more than often(not sure about this) foreign funded insurgents who have no regard for human life. These people are payed by radical governments like Iran. They are mostlikely doing it for the money that they and their family will recieve instead of purely religious beliefs. The true mujahadin follow the Quran, more so than the foreign funded terrorists. Regardless they are Jihadists either way, and it is tradition(about 2000+ years of it) for our Christian based society to fight them. See, I'm rambling...gotta sleep...not making sense...

Edit: My final thoughts on the original thread topic. I believe that there is a high possibility of these splinter Jihadists being here in America. Yet I still find it next to impossible that they would target churches in Bib county Alabama. They would mostlikely target larger churches(with people in them) in large cities, i.e. Birmingham. This area(Alabama and surounding states) has experianced church burnings in the past, well before our declared war on terror (well over 100 years as a matter of fact). All of which have been racialy motivated or hate crimes in general against religious people.

[edit on 4-2-2006 by ReginalBigsby]

It could be the work of extreme Muslims but let's not jump the gun. It could be the work of home grown terrorists or even members of the dwindiling members of the KKK. It is not clear as to why it has just been targeting the Baptist churches.

It is obovious though, that these works are being done by a person(s) who have no heart or a heart filled with hate. At a time in our history now is the time for us all to be coming together instead of trying to divide our religious systems.

It should be known that those who are responsible for these actions are only going to hell a little bit faster than most. Promote peace and not hate.

These church balzes could not have been set by Muslims. If it were Muslims that set the fires, then why haven't we seen any synagogues? I think it is a person or a group of people that have been intentionally setting these fires. Wouldn't surprise me either if it were Ku Klix Klan members setting the fires.

ReginalBigsby, really? Then why is it that they have made it a point to destroy places of worship throughout Islamic history?

What happened to the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, or the Church of Calvary or the Church of the Reurrection? Maybe by learning about those examples, and the rest of the brutal oppression of the Christians in the Holy Lands, you'll learn what brought about the Crusades. Yes, destruction of placees of worship.

I am not saying that these churches were burned by Muslims. As a matter of fact, I'd be very surprised if that be the case.

Just in case, I think that we Christians should protest and burn stuff, maybe burn an embassy or two.

I love the way it is assumed by someone that it is a "Redneck", whatever that is. Sounds anti-Southern and condscending, so it must fit.

[edit on 4-2-2006 by Thomas Crowne]

I would find it hard to believe that these churches were burnt by "Islamic Terrorists" seeing as how all of these churches were in VERY rural areas...I live in Alabama and I could drive to most of these churches in about 45 minutes from my house, and yes, there are a few large synogogues in Alabama...there are 2 in downtown Birmingham only 3 blocks from each other, Temple Beth-El and Temple Emmanu-el. As for the KKK or Redneck theory, I would have to discount that too...many of the rednecks that I know(myself included) are very religious, and most of them are Southern Baptist at that...I would bet money 1 or 2 twentyish year olds, unemployed or in very low paying jobs who have been to these churches looking for assistance in paying bills, etc..both of the counties that the fires happened in, Bibb County and Chilton County are pretty rural with little job base, I have several in-laws who live in Chilton County and my brother-in-law has a job there where he makes about $50K a year and they live VERY well.

I cant believe this.....

There is absolutly NO proof at all that any group at all was behind this....nevermind ''islamic militants.''

There are more Mexican militants in the US right now than Islamic militants...why not blame them?

How you people attack muslims is appalling. You all should be ashamed of yourselves.

As for these fires, I wont doubt if somehow the authorities are involved....remember Waco?

More often then not, it was probably created as a diversion for the news to focus on, instead of the Bush Administration indictments that are going on RIGHT NOW. I am talking about ALL of these people. Not just ''Scooter'' Libby.

Thanks Patrick Fitzgerald....you are a true patriot.

Thomas, war drives men to do things which are not condisered the norm. After taking your advice, and researching the history of the churches you listed, I have to agree to an extent. Though, there is still evidence backing up my claim. I'll use the Church of the Holy Sepulcher as an example. Here is where my information is coming from.

This Persian invasion stirred the whole empire and by 622 AD, emperor Heraclius had already recaptured the whole territory and forced the Persians to return the war trophies amongst which the relic of the Cross, which was returned to the church of the Holy Sepulchre on the 20th of March 630 AD.

The arrival of the Arab conquerors in 638 AD did not alter the sanctity of this shrine. This is how the Patriarch of Alexandria, Eutichius (X cent.), describes the events of the Arab conquest:
Omar ibn al-Khattab and his generals left Syria towards Jerusalem and laid siege to the city. Sofronius, the Patriarch of Jerusalem, went to Omar ibn al-Khattab who granted his protection to the inhabitants and the city through a letter handed over to the Patriarch himself. Omar ibn al-Khattab granted the safeguard of the Christian sites ordering not to destroy them or to use them as living quarters.

In this account by Eutichius it is said that Omar ibn al-Khattab paid a visit to the church of the Resurrection and sat in its courtyard but at the time of prayer he left the church and prayed outside, fearing that future generations might use his prayer inside the church as a pretext for converting it into a mosque. Eutichius further say that Omar ibn al-Khattab wrote also a decree which he handed to the Patriarch, in which he prohibited that Muslims gather in prayer at the site.

It goes on to say that the church was once again burned(in 988) as revenge to the loss the muslims faced in Syria, and a few times before this. Omar ibn al-Khattab, a devoutly religiuos man would not have allowed this if he was still alive and in control of the moslim army. He followed the Quran to the t, he lived his life by every word in the book. He might have been a Moslim raider, but he was a good man.

This doesn't really prove either of our statments either way. It is my belief that if moslims followed the Quran in a more stict manner, there would have been less wars fought throughout the middle ages. It is also my belief that the way Christians handled the crusades was wrong. There is nothing stoping us from burning places of religiuos value(besides good faith). Therefore I see these moslim acts, as revenge. I may be wrong, because I did not research the burning of mosque's during that period in time. I'll bet my money that Christians razed more mosques than moslims razed churches, again I might be wrong, for the christains were greatly out numbered in the area.

About my redneck comment. For one, I do not have a anti-southern view point. It may have sounded like that, but it is not the case. The south is my home. I was born in Birmingham, and lived half my life in Shelby county(right outside of Birmingham). I have family around the Huntsville area, Sand mountain(the back woods) to be specific. All of the people I have met have been very nice people, even cashiers at the supermarket will spend ten minutes talking to you. Not only was it my home in the past, it will be again in the future, I plan on moving back after college.

To tell you the truth I know more rednecks here, in the very affluent Bucks county PA. By redneck I meant, hatefull and ignorant. I should have used a different term, but redneck conveyed my fealings the best. I admit that my comment was wrong. Ninety percent of the time the term redneck is used in a anti-southern manner. This is not the case here where I live, I'd say it is the opposite.

When we say redneck(here), we don't mean anti-southern. We typically mean someone who won't hesitate to shoot you with salt pellates, lol, or someone who has a poor education and is raised in a manner of bigotry.

The term redneck has many different connotations, see even Todeskopf(deadhead? hehe) calls himself a redneck, but I'll guarantee you that he is not ignorant, has a good education, and was not raised in a manner of bigotry. Again I appologize for not making my terminology clear, I should have thought about this before hand.

[edit on 4-2-2006 by ReginalBigsby]

I think four of the churches burned were predominantly white. I first thought the same thing, that a bunch of White Power morons were responsible, but that doesn't necessarily fit. It could very well be some anti-religious group, or just an individual with a hatred for the church.

It could be something more complicated, but we may never know.

The chance that radical muslim extremists are on the loose, torching churches in 'Bama, is unlikely I think.

Maybe by learning about those examples, and the rest of the brutal oppression of the Christians in the Holy Lands, you'll learn what brought about the Crusades.

Which ones? The crusades are an inordinately complicated piece of history. Reducing their cause down to "destruction of holy places" does enormous injustice to the complexity of the actual events.

For example, if Christian crusaders were on a holy mission to rescue places of worship, why did they massacre every non-Christian they could find on the way (twice)? They weren't rescuing places of worship from the Jews who lived between Europe and the holy land, they were just a wild mob filled with bloodlust and propaganda and racism(blood libel and such).

What about the shepherds crusade? That was ostensibly for the glory of God, but it was a complete and utter disgrace to all involved. The children's crusade was perhaps the only time people left Europe with the intent of taking back holy sites, while managing not to murder random innocent bystanders on the way. Not that it was a success...

Anyway, point being, what you said was an oversimplification I think.

I don’t think it was radical Muslims; the overwhelming majority of Muslims in the US are not extremists. Do I think it was some Neo-Nazi or white supremacy group? Not really, four of the five churches were predominantly white, it just wouldn’t make sense. My only real conviction is that it probably was some anti religion person(s), though I hope I’m wrong, it would just vilify us atheists a bit more.

it'll probably be 3 or 4 kids who are into Black Metal.

I am fortunate to have several friends in the law enforcement community in this area...one who I am very close to, my wife and I keep his kids for he and his wife every once in a while...he told me the other day that they are looking at a white supremacist link since all of the churches that were burnt had flags at half-staff in reverence to Coretta Scott-King...and believe me folks...there is a LOT of KKK in the Bibb-Chilton county area, the largest Klavern in the state of ALabama is in Chilton County

Originally posted by Todeskopf
he told me the other day that they are looking at a white supremacist link since all of the churches that were burnt had flags at half-staff in reverence to Coretta Scott-King...and believe me folks...there is a LOT of KKK in the Bibb-Chilton county area, the largest Klavern in the state of ALabama is in Chilton County

As well as the death of Coretta Scott-King, the other thing of note this month is it is in fact Black History Month. I wonder if this has something to do with the timing, though other than this tidbit about the half staff flag, it really didn't appear to be racial incidents, though it still has to be viewed as a hate crime, regardless of what the authorities are saying.

For those interested, A&E is airing a new show Monday night "Skinheads USA". From what I can tell it is based on an inside look at a group operating out of Alabama. The previews are intriguing to say the least, as it it indicates strategies and actions I previously had never heard of. I am hoping to catch it myself for further insight. It will be interesting to see if this show sheds any light on possible motivations for these church burnings.

Edit: By the way, the number is up to 9 possibly related in this spree:

www.foxnews.com...

And this is interesting.....

Ingram said there have been 59 church fires in Alabama in the past five years, including the nine reported in the past four days, and 19 were ruled arsons.

So in 5 years 59 fires and only 19 ruled arson? That leaves 40 fires in 5 years not ruled arson? What the hey causes so many fires in churches other than arson?



[edit on 2/11/2006 by Relentless]

Looks like a tenth church is up in flames
www.cnn.com...

I, too, was interested in who could be doing this so, while amused by the Jihadists-did-it-as-usual debate, I did a little googling and found some interesting stuff.

A few witnesses have to come forward to say that shortly after their chuch was set on fire, they saw either an SUV, or an SUV and its passengers. Here are some quotes:

External Source
"It was well before dawn and in the dim light [witness] Lawley couldn't get a good look inside the dark SUV as it pulled out from behind the fire-scarred church. He couldn't tell how many people were inside or make out their features. He certainly had no way of knowing for sure whether they were, as some have theorized, old-time racists reliving a sordid era in the history of the South." (Feb. 10, 2006)

and

External Source
"[Jim] Cavanaugh [regional director of the federal Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives agency] said witnesses “on more than one occasion” have mentioned seeing two white men in a dark SUV near the church fires. But he said some witnesses have mentioned other vehicles, and investigators aren't looking solely for a dark SUV. (Feb. 8, 2006)

So, at least, there are some leads.

But, I have to say, I also find it really interesting that the CourtTV link (the first one), which is dated 2 days after the second link, leaves out the part where witnesses actually saw people in the SUV. In fact, not only are they, essentially, lying by omission, but they also go on tell you precisely what the witness didn't see. Thats certainly a new method of reporting.

I wonder why they went through all that trouble, just to avoid telling you what anybody could find on google.