None Dare Call it Christian Terrorism

[Colonel]

Well, does the KKK intend to terrorize people or not?

Yes and no. I'm sure its members would love to however the organization that is the Klan today simply lacks the ability or will to carry out any sort of terrorist act even intimidation. The Klan was pretty well destroyed by the criminal and civil suits launched against them in the 80s and 90s. Thus as a unified entity one can not say they are today a terrorist organization. Some of their members may indeed be terrorists but on the whole most of the organization is fragmented.

 

[Borachio]

But just a minute. The Supreme Court banned burning crosses in 2002 saying it was intimidating and therefore not protected under freedom of speech.

I've just posted a video showing the Klan burning crosses in 2012.

Intimidation is terrorism, wouldn't you say?

 

[brennan]

I'm still waiting for you to be constructive and explain how i've misunderstood this thread. But carry on acting like those monkeys you hear about at the zoo who throw their own faeces around.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Yes and no. I'm sure its members would love to however the organization that is the Klan today simply lacks the ability or will to carry out any sort of terrorist act even intimidation. The Klan was pretty well destroyed by the criminal and civil suits launched against them in the 80s and 90s. Thus as a unified entity one can not say they are today a terrorist organization. Some of their members may indeed be terrorists but on the whole most of the organization is fragmented.

The KKK stopped being a major national group in the 1920s. After that they intentionally fragmented into much smaller groups so they couldn't be so easily infiltrated and identified.

 

[Formaldehyde]

I'm still waiting for you to be constructive and explain how i've misunderstood this thread. But carry on acting like those monkeys you hear about at the zoo who throw their own faeces around.

Do you even bother to read your own posts?

What's to discuss? The thread premise appears to be that people are only prepared to call terrorism religious when it is perpetrated by muslims. You shot yourself in the foot by using an example that is not a group most people associate primarily with Christian motivations. There's a wiki page on Christian terrorism, perhaps you could try a better example. Personally I find your original premise trite. I have no issues with declaring religiously motivated terrorism to be religiously motivated terrorism.

Do you see that "premise" mentioned anywhere in the OP? Or has it even been mentioned by anybody subsequently?

And, again, that Wiki page specifically mentions the KKK and I even posted that section in this thread.

Are you complaining about your own posts when you say by "acting like those monkeys you hear about at the zoo who throw their own faeces around"? Because that seems to accurately describe many of them.

 

[Colonel]

But just a minute. The Supreme Court banned burning crosses in 2002 saying it was intimidating and therefore not protected under freedom of speech.

I've just posted a video showing the Klan burning crosses in 2012.

Intimidation is terrorism, wouldn't you say?

I acknowledged some may be terrorists but as it is fragmented you can not say the entire Klan condoned that thus the organization can not be held to be a terrorist organization. This is again a definition issue, not a issue of whether the Klan is good or bad, it most certainly is bad.

 

[brennan]

Formy for the love of humanity actually try to communicate you blockhead. I know what I said. I don't know why you think i'm wrong. How the bloody hell do you think quoting my post helps?

 

[Bugfatty300]

But just a minute. The Supreme Court banned burning crosses in 2002 saying it was intimidating and therefore not protected under freedom of speech.

I've just posted a video showing the Klan burning crosses in 2012.

Intimidation is terrorism, wouldn't you say?

Which case are you referring to? This was the latest SC case I was able to find:

Virginia v. Black, 2003
Ruling: Virginia's statute against cross burning is unconstitutional because it places the burden of proof on the defendant to demonstrate that he or she did not intend the cross burning as intimidation.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Formy for the love of humanity actually try to communicate you blockhead. I know what I said. I don't know why you think i'm wrong. How the bloody hell do you think quoting my post helps?

So which of my comments do you disagree?

 

[Borachio]

Which case are you referring to? This was the latest SC case I was able to find:

Virginia v. Black, 2003
Ruling: Virginia's statute against cross burning is unconstitutional because it places the burden of proof on the defendant to demonstrate that he or she did not intend the cross burning as intimidation.

I don't know, tbh.

I was just quoting from this site. Which mentions a SC ruling in 2002.

I can't warrant the accuracy of it.

 

[brennan]

Eh? I've asked you why you think my understanding of the thread premise is wrong... and you ask me what I disagree with? Are you taking the piss??? Have you lost the capacity to communicate in English?

 

[Samson]

You have to follow the links.

But I think you are going to continue to suffer from the same problem no matter what evidence is presented to you.

You talk about evidence, for your claim that 95% of terrorism is not religious, and you come up with a book review with a link to a project, and I come up with an actual list of actual attacks, on which Boko Hassam and IS make up more than 5%.

 

[Bugfatty300]

I don't know, tbh.

I was just quoting from this site. Which mentions a SC ruling in 2002.

I can't warrant the accuracy of it.

Looks like they misunderstood the ruling. As far as I can tell, instances of cross burning that is intended to be a specific threat is illegal but an outright ban on the practice is unconstitutional.

 

[Farm Boy]

Coming from you I take it as a compliment of the highest order.

It kinda is for its type. I'd imagine it takes a bit of skill to make both words, "logic" and "facts," sneer with insult both to the reader and their base definitions.

 

[Borachio]

Link to video.

I don't disagree with anything in that video. And I don't know anyone who would.

So. What are you guys arguing about, again?