Christian Terrorism?
September 25th, 2006 | by Jersey McJones |So, it appears that the Anthrax used in the terror-mailings in 2001 was not weapons-grade after all (kinda sickening that we would have “weapons grade anthrax” in the first place, but I digress). Looks like quite a few people could have had access to the spores afterall. I wonder who it could have been. I wonder why it’s taken so long to catch them. Perhaps who it was is why they haven’t been caught. Perhaps it would make some people look really, really bad.
Given the victims and the timing, it seems that the motives of the attack were pretty simple - hit the “liberal” media and “liberal” senators / make it look like Arab terrorists did it. So then, who would do such a thing? Hmmm… Who really hates the “liberal” media and politicians? Hmmm… Who’s violent enough to do that? Hmmm… Let’s see, who attacked abortion clinics, the Atlanta Olympics? Who attacks gays and lesbians, minorities and hippy-types? Hmmm…
Gee! Could it be Rightwing Christian Sickos? Naaaaaahhhhhh……
JMJ
9 Responses to “Christian Terrorism?”
By ken grandlund on Sep 26, 2006 | Reply
HA- I saw that new bit too. Yes, that anthrax scare was just that…a scare designed to elevate the fear factor in its nascent stages. And it worked for a while too. And I think you’re right about the ‘prosecution’ being something pretty low on the priority pole these days because to find the culprit could embarrass a bunch of folks.
By Craig R. Harmon on Sep 26, 2006 | Reply
So essentially, Ken, you are accusing our government of murder: five people died, after all.
Is there anything you won’t accuse this administration of?
By ken grandlund on Sep 26, 2006 | Reply
Did I say anything about ‘our government’ being responsible for this act Craig? ‘Our government” is made up of a whole bunch of people. I don’t really know who is responsible, but I do know that the entire event was overblown and used to hype up public fear over a burgeoning War on Terror. It is interesting to note that the initial letters were mailed pre-9/11, if I remember correctly.
Are you saying that ‘our government’ would never commit acts to advance a political policy or philosophy? The history of this fine nation would say otherwise. After all, ‘our government’ engaged in systematic genocide for over 100 years in the pursuit of a political goal, namely taking over the continent from shore to shore. Five people is just a drop in the bucket, so to speak.
By Craig R. Harmon on Sep 26, 2006 | Reply
I failed to read the post well. It accuses Rightwing Christian sickos like Eric Rudolph anyway.
Never mind.
No. Some pretty awful things have been done by our government, that’s true.
By Jersey McJones on Sep 26, 2006 | Reply
And it would make the Religious Right,, the backbone of conseravtive voting constituency, look awfully, awfully bad, if it turned out I was right and the culprits were terrorist Christians.
JMJ
By Craig R. Harmon on Sep 26, 2006 | Reply
Jersey,
When you get as far right as to be blowing people up and sending anthrax to people, you already look awfully, awfully bad. The problem with the way you put it is, I am on the religious right. Even if this was an Eric Rudolph type, it doesn’t make me look bad at all…or at least it shouldn’t. That’s why I chafe at labels like “Religious Right” being used for terrorists like Eric. It is a label that way too many people would identify themselves with who would never think of doing those things. It’s like saying Sunni Muslims are terrorists. That is why I am careful to use the phrase militant Muslims/Islamists, or radical militant Muslims/Islamists when I talk about the enemy. That is much more accurate. ‘Religious Right’ simply doesn’t belong in the same paragraph with the likes of Eric Rudolph.
The people that this should make look bad, already look bad. If it smears off onto the likes of me, it will be because of the inappropriate use of broad-brush terms like ‘Religious Right’ to include people who do these murderous, terrorist activities.
Please try to come up with something that is better suited to Eric Rudolph than a phrase that also describes me…something like ‘Terrorist Christians’. As long as that doesn’t become broadened through usage to describe Christians who neither do nor approve of kidnapping and murdering abortion doctors and nurses, that will both describe the people whom you intend to malign and will not include anyone who does not deserve to be placed into the same thought with the ‘Terrorist Christians’.
Please…I implore you.
I don’t deserve the broad-brush smear.
By liberal vet on Sep 26, 2006 | Reply
One issue I am continuously struck by. Many at this post including me blame religions for violent acts. Nothing could be further from the truth. People commit violent acts in the name of one god or another under false pretenses. This is a fact that turns me off. Craig does not have a violent bone in his body unless I totally misread his frequent commentary. Left and right have to realize the vast majority of faith based religions are none violent. They use religion as a tool, giving destitute people false hope and alienating them further from knowledge. The kind of knowledge that would dissuade a person from committing a violent act and ending their life. It is time for Muslims, Christians and Jews to denounce violence. We must stop this “terrorist war” at its source. Destitute people are desperate and easily propagandized. Just my thoughts if I insulted anyone I apologize now. LV
By Jersey McJones on Sep 27, 2006 | Reply
Sorry Craig, but there’d be no Eric Rudolf if there were no Religious Right. He is a product of that moevment and the movement should be held to blame.
JMJ
By Craig R. Harmon on Sep 27, 2006 | Reply
Whatever.
//sigh//