Official Politics thread pt. 2

[JJ Hustles]

At this point, I came to the conclusion that Obama was a mistake. We should have gone with Hillary.

Hillary might have been alot worse...they are both European socialists..

[JJ Hustles]

See Breivik, Anders you nut job. Your insinuations are disgusting.

There's a major difference...Anders is the worst kind of human, but he did not use the teachings of Christ as inspiration or motivation to do what he did...He acted alone, and his actions are not a world wide epidemic.

Radical Islam is prevalent in every corner of the world, and the motivation is the teachings of the Koran.

I'm not saying every Muslim is bad, i'm saying there is a large faction of Muslims that subscribe to a certain interpretation of Islam, that is a danger to civilised society...the same problem does NOT persist in Christianity.

[rsavaj]

The dude thought he was a Christian Holy Warrior fighting off the "infidels"....there's no difference between him and the Muslim jihadists.

[seren]

See Breivik, Anders you nut job. Your insinuations are disgusting.

There's a major difference...Anders is the worst kind of human, but he did not use the teachings of Christ as inspiration or motivation to do what he did...He acted alone, and his actions are not a world wide epidemic.

Radical Islam is prevalent in every corner of the world, and the motivation is the teachings of the Koran.

I'm not saying every Muslim is bad, i'm saying there is a large faction of Muslims that subscribe to a certain interpretation of Islam, that is a danger to civilised society...the same problem does NOT persist in Christianity.

STFU and GTFU ballboy.

[rsavaj]

Bill Nye talks to Fox News as if they're a bunch of children when explaining science. Hilarious clip.

JON SCOTT: Does it go, you know, anywhere close to the climate change debate that's underway here on earth? I mean, you know, if the moon had --

BILL NYE: Well, it does for me.

SCOTT: -- had erupting volcanoes, a few years, well, a few million years ago, however you want to put it --

NYE: No, billion.

SCOTT: -- you know, it's not like we've been up there burning fossil fuels.

NYE: Uh, no, volcanoes are not connected to the burning of fossil fuels, it's connected to mining, but the big thing for us, on my side of this thing, is the science is true, and so when you discover -- the people who got really got involved in climate change, got involved in it often by studying Venus, the planet Venus. So the physics, the science that happens on Venus, is the same as the science that happens on the earth, the science that happens on the moon, in this case the geology the study of rocks, that happens on the moon, is the same science that happens on the earth. So when you say to yourself, well, I'm going to ignore all the evidence of climate change, you're saying, I'm going to ignore the best ideas anybody's ever had, that's science. And so this is quite troubling to those of us on our side of it.

SCOTT: Why aren't they erupting now?

NYE: Well the moon cooled off, that's a great question. That's a fabulous question. The moon is quite a bit smaller than the earth so it cools off faster.

http://motherboard.tv/2011/7/28/beautif ... o-fox-news

That was honestly one of the most amazing/painful things I have seen in a long time. You can tell the exact moment where he realizes the kind of idiocy he's faced with. He takes a little bit of a breath, his eyebrows shoot up, has an internal *facepalm* moment and he switches back into "The Science Guy!" who had to explain things to little kids. Like, his entire body language changed...he started using smaller words, started defining everything....brilliant.

"Venus, the planet Venus."
"Geology, which is the study of rocks."
"That's a fabulous question!"
"We're going to get into some mathematics, and algebra."
"A small cupcake cools off faster than a big cake."

Oh my god....props Bill Nye. Major props. That's going to be my favorite way of telling someone they're an idiot from now on.

"A small cupcake cools off faster than a big cake."

[funkatron101]

The dude thought he was a Christian Holy Warrior fighting off the "infidels"....there's no difference between him and the Muslim jihadists.

I kind of liken him to Hitler. Hitler seemed to have very conflicting views on religion. Some claimed that he despised Catholics, and organized religion, but often referenced Christianity in his book, and in public, and pledged his allegiance to Catholicism.

"The Jews killed Christ" became a platform to further his cause.

It's that perversion of religion that makes it dangerous. The main difference here is that Anders Behring Breivik did not influence others on a scale like Hitler or Muslim Extremists.

[JJ Hustles]

The dude thought he was a Christian Holy Warrior fighting off the "infidels"....there's no difference between him and the Muslim jihadists.

Absolutely and unequivocally WRONG....This guy wasn't even a member of a church...There is not one shred of evidence suggesting he was opposed with Christianity, or he knew anything about the teachings of Christ.

I know it would be very convenient for the far left to be able say this is Christian Jihad, but that movement doesn't exist.

His motivation was political.....He was a fascist.....He was against Marxism....Is that a Christian belief?

[funkatron101]

The dude thought he was a Christian Holy Warrior fighting off the "infidels"....there's no difference between him and the Muslim jihadists.

Absolutely and unequivocally WRONG....This guy wasn't even a member of a church...There is not one shred of evidence suggesting he was opposed with Christianity, or he knew anything about the teachings of Christ.

I know it would be very convenient for the far left to be able say this is Christian Jihad, but that movement doesn't exist.

His motivation was political.....He was a fascist.....He was against Marxism....Is that a Christian belief?

From Mugzi in the Norway shooting/bombing thread.

This is an excerpt from his manifesto.

From the 1,518-page manifesto and handbook of Andrew Burwick, A European Declaration of Independence:
Q. Are you a religious man, and should science take priority over the teachings of the Bible?

A: My parents, being rather secular wanted to give me the choice in regards to religion. At the age of 15 I chose to be baptised and confirmed in the Norwegian State Church. I consider myself to be 100% Christian. However, I strongly object to the current suicidal path of the Catholic Church but especially the Protestant Church. I support a Church that believes in self defence and who are willing to fight for its principles and values, at least resist the efforts put forth to exterminate it gradually. The Catholic and Protestant Church are both cheering their own annihilation considering the fact that they embrace the ongoing inter-faith dialogue and the appeasement of Islam.

The current Church elite has shown its suicidal face, as vividly demonstrated last year by the archbishop of Canterbury's speech contemplating the legitimacy of Shariah in parts of Britain.

I trust that the future leadership of a European cultural conservative hegemony in Europe will ensure that the current Church leadership are replaced and the systems somewhat reformed. We must have a Church leadership who supports a future Crusade with the intention of liberating the Balkans, Anatolia and creating three Christian states in the Middle East.

Efforts should be made to facilitate the de-construction of the Protestant Church whose members should convert back to Catholicism. The Protestant Church had an important role once but its original goals have been accomplished and have contributed to reform the Catholic Church as well. Europe should have a united Church lead by a just and non-suicidal Pope who is willing to fight for the security of his subjects, especially in regards to Islamic atrocities.

I fully support that the Church gains more or less monopoly on religion in Europe (government policies, school curriculum etc at least) in addition to granting the Church several concessions which have been taken from them the last decades.

As for the Church and science, it is essential that science takes an undisputed precedence over biblical teachings. Europe has always been the cradle of science and it must always continue to be that way.

Regarding my personal relationship with God, I guess I'm not an excessively religious man. I am first and foremost a man of logic. However, I am a supporter of a monocultural Christian Europe.

Q: Do I have to believe in God or Jesus in order to become a Justiciar Knight?

A: As this is a cultural war, our definition of being a Christian does not necessarily constitute that you are required to have a personal relationship with God or Jesus. Being a Christian can mean many things;

- That you believe in and want to protect Europe's Christian cultural heritage. The European cultural heritage, our norms (moral codes and social structures included), our traditions and our modern political systems are based on Christianity -Protestantism, Catholicism, Orthodox Christianity and the legacy of the European enlightenment (reasonis the primary source and legitimacy for authority).

It is not required that you have a personal relationship with God or Jesus in order to fight for our Christian cultural heritage and the European way. In many ways, our modern societies and European secularism is a result of European Christendom and the enlightenment. It is therefore essential to understand the difference between a "Christian fundamentalist theocracy" (everything we do not want) and a secular European society based on our Christian cultural heritage (what we do want).

So no, you don't need to have a personal relationship with God or Jesus to fight for our Christian cultural heritage. It is enough that you are a Christian-agnostic or a Christian atheist (an atheist who wants to preserve at least the basics of the European Christian cultural legacy (Christian holidays, Christmas and Easter)). The PCCTS, Knights Templar is therefore not a religious organisation but rather a Christian "culturalist" military order.

Hobbies and interests?

A: Friends, fitness (weightlifting and spinning), snowboarding, opera, theatre, art exhibitions, antiquities, MMOs, science fiction, Freemasons, European architecture, European history, European art in general, genealogy, heraldry, political/stock/currency/commodity analysis, travelling - learning about different cultures.

Annual grouse hunting trip, Oslo Pistol Club, Norwegian Masonic Greater Lounge.

I took a year off when I was 25 and played WoW PvE hardcore for a year....I’m currently playing Modern Warfare 2 casually. (p. 1408)

If there is a God I will be allowed to enter heaven as all other martyrs for the Church in the past...

I highly recommend that you, prior to the operation, visit a Church and perform the Eucharist (Holy Communion/The Lord’s Supper ). As we know, this ritual represents the final meal that Jesus Christ shared with his disciples before his arrest and eventual crucifixion. You should also solve any issues you might have with God and ask for forgiveness for past sins. Finally, ask him to prepare for the arrival of a martyr for the Church.

Pope Urban II and Pope Innocent III granted indulgence to all future Crusaders The PCCTS, Knights Templars are Destroyers of Marxism and Defenders of Christendom. We are Crusaders, martyrs of the Church, selfless defenders of the weak and the blind. We our not only automatically granted access to heaven in light of our selfless acts; our good deeds and final sacrifice will be added to the divine storehouse of merit and will therefore help other less virtuos individuals...

I usually refer to Protestantism as the Marxism of Christianity. As long as you ask forgiveness before you die you can literally live a life as the most despicable character imaginable.

When a Justiciar Knight martyrs himself for the cause he walks down a path well knowing what is likely to await him. He chooses this path of sacrifice, not for his own self serving needs, but for his family, friends, his people, his culture, his nation and for the preservation of Christendom. As such, he is sacrificing the most divine gift, life itself, in service of others and in service of God.

A Justiciar Knight who martyrs himself for the cause, and/or self terminates during or after an operation for tactical reasons, should be celebrated as martyrs for the Church. It is expected that the Catholic Church and other denominations of Church authorities in Europe (and independent canon law experts) acknowledges our sacrifices and defines our deeds as acts of martyrdom for the Church, according to canon law. The Church should not have second thoughts on the matter as they are fully aware of the fact that European Christendom is gradually being deconstructed.

It is time that the Pope and his cardinals begin to resist the deliberate deconstruction of European Christendom. pp. 1345,46,48,61; 1405




Did Norway's Laws Against Death Penalty Encourage Massacre?
vanity | 07-25-11 | OrangeHoof

Early reports from Norwegian authorities are that the shooter/bomber who surrendered to police after carrying out his deadly spree expects to spend the rest of his life in prison.

Norway, of course, is a liberal "tolerant" country that has long since outlawed the death penalty.

My question is this: Did the shooter's knowledge that if he surrendered to police he would not be executed subtly encourage him to carry out his deadly spree because he knew it would not cost him his life?

The guy was calling for reform of the Catholic church, and identified himself as "100% Christian."

He uses religion for his cause when it fits his agenda. Just like Hitler. Just like Muslim extremists.

None of them have/had a clear understanding of what they claim to fight for religiously.

[Capn'O]

Bill Nye talks to Fox News as if they're a bunch of children when explaining science. Hilarious clip.

JON SCOTT: Does it go, you know, anywhere close to the climate change debate that's underway here on earth? I mean, you know, if the moon had --

BILL NYE: Well, it does for me.

SCOTT: -- had erupting volcanoes, a few years, well, a few million years ago, however you want to put it --

NYE: No, billion.

SCOTT: -- you know, it's not like we've been up there burning fossil fuels.

NYE: Uh, no, volcanoes are not connected to the burning of fossil fuels, it's connected to mining, but the big thing for us, on my side of this thing, is the science is true, and so when you discover -- the people who got really got involved in climate change, got involved in it often by studying Venus, the planet Venus. So the physics, the science that happens on Venus, is the same as the science that happens on the earth, the science that happens on the moon, in this case the geology the study of rocks, that happens on the moon, is the same science that happens on the earth. So when you say to yourself, well, I'm going to ignore all the evidence of climate change, you're saying, I'm going to ignore the best ideas anybody's ever had, that's science. And so this is quite troubling to those of us on our side of it.

SCOTT: Why aren't they erupting now?

NYE: Well the moon cooled off, that's a great question. That's a fabulous question. The moon is quite a bit smaller than the earth so it cools off faster.

http://motherboard.tv/2011/7/28/beautif ... o-fox-news

That's very drole. Very close to one of the "science guy" arguments I bring out to the climate change skeptics. You look at "the planet Mercury" which has no atmosphere and "the planet Venus" which has a very robust atmosphere and compare temperatures on the two planets. Venus is hotter and, more importantly, has relatively little difference between daytime and nighttime temperatures whereas Mercury's temperature swings very drastically to well below zero.

While other differences account for this (as Nye mentioned, a big cake cools slower than a small one ), the major difference is the presence of an atmosphere. So, we can easily extrapolate that the extent and composition of said atmosphere would influence temperature changes. We can run experiments on the ground to demonstrate that carbon dioxide gas traps heat at a rate greater than the atmosphere at large and Voila!

Unless, of course, the UN is fabricating evidence about planetary temperatures.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1Y73sPHKxw[/youtube]

[Capn'O]

The dude thought he was a Christian Holy Warrior fighting off the "infidels"....there's no difference between him and the Muslim jihadists.

Absolutely and unequivocally WRONG....This guy wasn't even a member of a church...There is not one shred of evidence suggesting he was opposed with Christianity, or he knew anything about the teachings of Christ.

I know it would be very convenient for the far left to be able say this is Christian Jihad, but that movement doesn't exist.

His motivation was political.....He was a fascist.....He was against Marxism....Is that a Christian belief?

From Mugzi in the Norway shooting/bombing thread.

This is an excerpt from his manifesto.

From the 1,518-page manifesto and handbook of Andrew Burwick, A European Declaration of Independence:
Q. Are you a religious man, and should science take priority over the teachings of the Bible?

A: My parents, being rather secular wanted to give me the choice in regards to religion. At the age of 15 I chose to be baptised and confirmed in the Norwegian State Church. I consider myself to be 100% Christian. However, I strongly object to the current suicidal path of the Catholic Church but especially the Protestant Church. I support a Church that believes in self defence and who are willing to fight for its principles and values, at least resist the efforts put forth to exterminate it gradually. The Catholic and Protestant Church are both cheering their own annihilation considering the fact that they embrace the ongoing inter-faith dialogue and the appeasement of Islam.

The current Church elite has shown its suicidal face, as vividly demonstrated last year by the archbishop of Canterbury's speech contemplating the legitimacy of Shariah in parts of Britain.

I trust that the future leadership of a European cultural conservative hegemony in Europe will ensure that the current Church leadership are replaced and the systems somewhat reformed. We must have a Church leadership who supports a future Crusade with the intention of liberating the Balkans, Anatolia and creating three Christian states in the Middle East.

Efforts should be made to facilitate the de-construction of the Protestant Church whose members should convert back to Catholicism. The Protestant Church had an important role once but its original goals have been accomplished and have contributed to reform the Catholic Church as well. Europe should have a united Church lead by a just and non-suicidal Pope who is willing to fight for the security of his subjects, especially in regards to Islamic atrocities.

I fully support that the Church gains more or less monopoly on religion in Europe (government policies, school curriculum etc at least) in addition to granting the Church several concessions which have been taken from them the last decades.

As for the Church and science, it is essential that science takes an undisputed precedence over biblical teachings. Europe has always been the cradle of science and it must always continue to be that way.

Regarding my personal relationship with God, I guess I'm not an excessively religious man. I am first and foremost a man of logic. However, I am a supporter of a monocultural Christian Europe.

Q: Do I have to believe in God or Jesus in order to become a Justiciar Knight?

A: As this is a cultural war, our definition of being a Christian does not necessarily constitute that you are required to have a personal relationship with God or Jesus. Being a Christian can mean many things;

- That you believe in and want to protect Europe's Christian cultural heritage. The European cultural heritage, our norms (moral codes and social structures included), our traditions and our modern political systems are based on Christianity -Protestantism, Catholicism, Orthodox Christianity and the legacy of the European enlightenment (reasonis the primary source and legitimacy for authority).

It is not required that you have a personal relationship with God or Jesus in order to fight for our Christian cultural heritage and the European way. In many ways, our modern societies and European secularism is a result of European Christendom and the enlightenment. It is therefore essential to understand the difference between a "Christian fundamentalist theocracy" (everything we do not want) and a secular European society based on our Christian cultural heritage (what we do want).

So no, you don't need to have a personal relationship with God or Jesus to fight for our Christian cultural heritage. It is enough that you are a Christian-agnostic or a Christian atheist (an atheist who wants to preserve at least the basics of the European Christian cultural legacy (Christian holidays, Christmas and Easter)). The PCCTS, Knights Templar is therefore not a religious organisation but rather a Christian "culturalist" military order.

Hobbies and interests?

A: Friends, fitness (weightlifting and spinning), snowboarding, opera, theatre, art exhibitions, antiquities, MMOs, science fiction, Freemasons, European architecture, European history, European art in general, genealogy, heraldry, political/stock/currency/commodity analysis, travelling - learning about different cultures.

Annual grouse hunting trip, Oslo Pistol Club, Norwegian Masonic Greater Lounge.

I took a year off when I was 25 and played WoW PvE hardcore for a year....I’m currently playing Modern Warfare 2 casually. (p. 1408)

If there is a God I will be allowed to enter heaven as all other martyrs for the Church in the past...

I highly recommend that you, prior to the operation, visit a Church and perform the Eucharist (Holy Communion/The Lord’s Supper ). As we know, this ritual represents the final meal that Jesus Christ shared with his disciples before his arrest and eventual crucifixion. You should also solve any issues you might have with God and ask for forgiveness for past sins. Finally, ask him to prepare for the arrival of a martyr for the Church.

Pope Urban II and Pope Innocent III granted indulgence to all future Crusaders The PCCTS, Knights Templars are Destroyers of Marxism and Defenders of Christendom. We are Crusaders, martyrs of the Church, selfless defenders of the weak and the blind. We our not only automatically granted access to heaven in light of our selfless acts; our good deeds and final sacrifice will be added to the divine storehouse of merit and will therefore help other less virtuos individuals...

I usually refer to Protestantism as the Marxism of Christianity. As long as you ask forgiveness before you die you can literally live a life as the most despicable character imaginable.

When a Justiciar Knight martyrs himself for the cause he walks down a path well knowing what is likely to await him. He chooses this path of sacrifice, not for his own self serving needs, but for his family, friends, his people, his culture, his nation and for the preservation of Christendom. As such, he is sacrificing the most divine gift, life itself, in service of others and in service of God.

A Justiciar Knight who martyrs himself for the cause, and/or self terminates during or after an operation for tactical reasons, should be celebrated as martyrs for the Church. It is expected that the Catholic Church and other denominations of Church authorities in Europe (and independent canon law experts) acknowledges our sacrifices and defines our deeds as acts of martyrdom for the Church, according to canon law. The Church should not have second thoughts on the matter as they are fully aware of the fact that European Christendom is gradually being deconstructed.

It is time that the Pope and his cardinals begin to resist the deliberate deconstruction of European Christendom. pp. 1345,46,48,61; 1405




Did Norway's Laws Against Death Penalty Encourage Massacre?
vanity | 07-25-11 | OrangeHoof

Early reports from Norwegian authorities are that the shooter/bomber who surrendered to police after carrying out his deadly spree expects to spend the rest of his life in prison.

Norway, of course, is a liberal "tolerant" country that has long since outlawed the death penalty.

My question is this: Did the shooter's knowledge that if he surrendered to police he would not be executed subtly encourage him to carry out his deadly spree because he knew it would not cost him his life?

The guy was calling for reform of the Catholic church, and identified himself as "100% Christian."

He uses religion for his cause when it fits his agenda. Just like Hitler. Just like Muslim extremists.

None of them have/had a clear understanding of what they claim to fight for religiously.

I'm not sure what the central argument of this debate is.

If it is simply saying that all of the major religions (including atheists) have their terrorist whackjobs then I would agree with that.

If it is equating what the Norway nut (or the OKC bomber, for that matter) did to a lot of the Muslim extremist type attacks I'm not so sure I agree and don't see the use in doing so. To date the Christian nuts have been mostly lone gunmen and not a part of an organized, pre-meditated network. The difference here is how you handle the two problems. With one, when you break down the network from the top, the bottom is much weaker. The lone gunman is much more difficult to predict or control but is also less prolific as you need a special kind of nutjob that is both crazy enough and intelligent enough to execute these kind of attacks alone.

[funkatron101]

The guy was calling for reform of the Catholic church, and identified himself as "100% Christian."

He uses religion for his cause when it fits his agenda. Just like Hitler. Just like Muslim extremists.

None of them have/had a clear understanding of what they claim to fight for religiously.

I'm not sure what the central argument of this debate is.

If it is simply saying that all of the major religions (including atheists) have their terrorist whackjobs then I would agree with that.

If it is equating what the Norway nut (or the OKC bomber, for that matter) did to a lot of the Muslim extremist type attacks I'm not so sure I agree and don't see the use in doing so. To date the Christian nuts have been mostly lone gunmen and not a part of an organized, pre-meditated network. The difference here is how you handle the two problems. With one, when you break down the network from the top, the bottom is much weaker. The lone gunman is much more difficult to predict or control but is also less prolific as you need a special kind of nutjob that is both crazy enough and intelligent enough to execute these kind of attacks alone.

I guess the point I am getting at is they are all using religion as a tool to fit their agenda. They are all perverting the message of religion to justify their actions to different degrees. That is how they are comparable.

While "Christian" (and I use that term loosely) extremists today are not organized, you could make a claim that Hitler falls under the category of a Christian Extremist in how he created an organized force to promote violence.

Christians will be quick to point out that neither Hitler, nor Anders Behring Breivik are true Christians. But Muslims will have the same argument with extremists.

No. There currently is no strong organized "terrorist" Christian group. But there has been organized violence under the veil of "Christianity" throughout history.

[rsavaj]

The dude thought he was a Christian Holy Warrior fighting off the "infidels"....there's no difference between him and the Muslim jihadists.

Absolutely and unequivocally WRONG....This guy wasn't even a member of a church...There is not one shred of evidence suggesting he was opposed with Christianity, or he knew anything about the teachings of Christ.

I know it would be very convenient for the far left to be able say this is Christian Jihad, but that movement doesn't exist.

His motivation was political.....He was a fascist.....He was against Marxism....Is that a Christian belief?

You(and a lot of other people) are pulling a "No True Scotsman": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

I like Stewart's take on it: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-j ... the-fodder

[funkatron101]

and while Anders Behring Breivik acted alone, he has hinted that this is only the beginning, and he is hoping that his actions spur a united front. He took a lead by example approach in an effort to organize others.

[JJ Hustles]

The dude thought he was a Christian Holy Warrior fighting off the "infidels"....there's no difference between him and the Muslim jihadists.

Absolutely and unequivocally WRONG....This guy wasn't even a member of a church...There is not one shred of evidence suggesting he was opposed with Christianity, or he knew anything about the teachings of Christ.

I know it would be very convenient for the far left to be able say this is Christian Jihad, but that movement doesn't exist.

His motivation was political.....He was a fascist.....He was against Marxism....Is that a Christian belief?

You(and a lot of other people) are pulling a "No True Scotsman": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

I like Stewart's take on it: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-j ... the-fodder

I kinda like my take on it, rather then a far left fake comedian's.

The guy never even quoted the bible, did not belong to a church, was focused on marxism and multiculturalism.

To say this is just like Islamic terrorism, only its Christian, is just to lie about the problem Islamic terrorism is for the world, including the problem to Muslims.

[Capn'O]

The guy was calling for reform of the Catholic church, and identified himself as "100% Christian."

He uses religion for his cause when it fits his agenda. Just like Hitler. Just like Muslim extremists.

None of them have/had a clear understanding of what they claim to fight for religiously.

I'm not sure what the central argument of this debate is.

If it is simply saying that all of the major religions (including atheists) have their terrorist whackjobs then I would agree with that.

If it is equating what the Norway nut (or the OKC bomber, for that matter) did to a lot of the Muslim extremist type attacks I'm not so sure I agree and don't see the use in doing so. To date the Christian nuts have been mostly lone gunmen and not a part of an organized, pre-meditated network. The difference here is how you handle the two problems. With one, when you break down the network from the top, the bottom is much weaker. The lone gunman is much more difficult to predict or control but is also less prolific as you need a special kind of nutjob that is both crazy enough and intelligent enough to execute these kind of attacks alone.

I guess the point I am getting at is they are all using religion as a tool to fit their agenda. They are all perverting the message of religion to justify their actions to different degrees. That is how they are comparable.

While "Christian" (and I use that term loosely) extremists today are not organized, you could make a claim that Hitler falls under the category of a Christian Extremist in how he created an organized force to promote violence.

Christians will be quick to point out that neither Hitler, nor Anders Behring Breivik are true Christians. But Muslims will have the same argument with extremists.

No. There currently is no strong organized "terrorist" Christian group. But there has been organized violence under the veil of "Christianity" throughout history.

Right, but that is not the current state of affairs. I would argue with Hitler that the primary motivation behind the Nazi movement was a secular nationalism whereas the others seem to have a more seamless integration of politics and religion into their platform. Certainly, Al Qaeda was.

My second point in distinguishing the two is less about characterizing the religion but rather how to consider each act in terms of planning the response.

[Capn'O]

and while Anders Behring Breivik acted alone, he has hinted that this is only the beginning, and he is hoping that his actions spur a united front. He took a lead by example approach in an effort to organize others.

It's possible that he is a part of a network that hasn't been discovered yet, but it's more probable that his harbingers have no basis in fact.

[funkatron101]

Right, but that is not the current state of affairs. I would argue with Hitler that the primary motivation behind the Nazi movement was a secular nationalism whereas the others seem to have a more seamless integration of politics and religion into their platform. Certainly, Al Qaeda was.

My second point in distinguishing the two is less about characterizing the religion but rather how to consider each act in terms of planning the response.

The motive for Al Qaeda is essentially the same. The reason why Al Qaeda started was because they wanted the "west" (The US) to GTFO out of the Middle East. They made something that really had nothing to do with religion into a religious issue. They manufactured a religious war in an effort to bolster their motives. Claiming that the US is interested in our oil doesn't quite have the same "ommph" as saying the US is trying to eliminate Islam and their way of life.

Anders did the same, albeit a slightly different approach. It appears that his overall goal is to have Muslims GTFO out of Europe. He acted alone, as a model, in hopes that other Christians follow suit and that the Catholic church "wises up." I really doubt that his method will work on a grand scale, but I do fear that there will be copycats. Just like Muslim suicide-bombers may not have a direct association to Al Qaeda.

[funkatron101]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLh78qiHl_M&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]

[Capn'O]

Right, but that is not the current state of affairs. I would argue with Hitler that the primary motivation behind the Nazi movement was a secular nationalism whereas the others seem to have a more seamless integration of politics and religion into their platform. Certainly, Al Qaeda was.

My second point in distinguishing the two is less about characterizing the religion but rather how to consider each act in terms of planning the response.

The motive for Al Qaeda is essentially the same. The reason why Al Qaeda started was because they wanted the "west" (The US) to GTFO out of the Middle East. They made something that really had nothing to do with religion into a religious issue. They manufactured a religious war in an effort to bolster their motives. Claiming that the US is interested in our oil doesn't quite have the same "ommph" as saying the US is trying to eliminate Islam and their way of life.

Anders did the same, albeit a slightly different approach. It appears that his overall goal is to have Muslims GTFO out of Europe. He acted alone, as a model, in hopes that other Christians follow suit and that the Catholic church "wises up." I really doubt that his method will work on a grand scale, but I do fear that there will be copycats. Just like Muslim suicide-bombers may not have a direct association to Al Qaeda.

I can see an ideological connection between Anders and Al Qaeda (didn't argue against that really) but really don't with Hitler. I just see Anders as further removed from any sort of movement than, say, Bin Laden who certainly had a well established network beneath him.

From an ideological standpoint it's academic but from a response standpoint... in this case we already got _the_ guy and simply have to monitor for copycats.

[HarthorneWingo]

Right, but that is not the current state of affairs. I would argue with Hitler that the primary motivation behind the Nazi movement was a secular nationalism whereas the others seem to have a more seamless integration of politics and religion into their platform. Certainly, Al Qaeda was.

My second point in distinguishing the two is less about characterizing the religion but rather how to consider each act in terms of planning the response.

The motive for Al Qaeda is essentially the same. The reason why Al Qaeda started was because they wanted the "west" (The US) to GTFO out of the Middle East. They made something that really had nothing to do with religion into a religious issue. They manufactured a religious war in an effort to bolster their motives. Claiming that the US is interested in our oil doesn't quite have the same "ommph" as saying the US is trying to eliminate Islam and their way of life.

Anders did the same, albeit a slightly different approach. It appears that his overall goal is to have Muslims GTFO out of Europe. He acted alone, as a model, in hopes that other Christians follow suit and that the Catholic church "wises up." I really doubt that his method will work on a grand scale, but I do fear that there will be copycats. Just like Muslim suicide-bombers may not have a direct association to Al Qaeda.

I can see an ideological connection between Anders and Al Qaeda (didn't argue against that really) but really don't with Hitler. I just see Anders as further removed from any sort of movement than, say, Bin Laden who certainly had a well established network beneath him.

From an ideological standpoint it's academic but from a response standpoint... in this case we already got _the_ guy and simply have to monitor for copycats.

I think the difference between Bin Laden and Anders is that one lead an uprising while the other acted alone. The common bond is that they are both religious fanatics who falsely rely on verbiage from their respective religious texts. One was a Christian terrorist, the other a Muslim.