‘Christian’ Warriors

I wouldnt consider them “terrorist”, but I think what they do is a little much. Would Jesus really swipe some children from their parents in Haiti? Would Jesus really make home-made bombs and blow *edited* up? Some Christians are very hypocritical.

NuRayZ said:

They called themselves christian warriors because they believed they were doing what God intended. Anyway, if you don’t know, they are a militia group who planned to attack some cops and use home made bombs to blow *edited* up. Do you consider them to be terrorists? If you believe them to be, then why? If not, why not?

If they really did plan on doing that then I’d start leaning towards Terrorist. However, I feel as if I need a lot more information to properly classify the type of terrorist that they are (other than religious terrorists). Also, what definition do you want to apply for this argument? There isn’t just one set definition of “Terrorism” and it can get pretty twisted up.

What was their reasons for using explosives and attack the police? Was it for political change, religious change, just social mayhem, etc?

What exactly are their main objectives as a group? It can’t just be “cops are bad”.

How was the group started?

Does the group split into cells? If so, have some of the cells been known to band with other cells outside of the Christian Warriors group?

Generally speaking I want more info.

If we can’t call Muslim extremists hellbent on destroying our way of life, killing innocents simply because they’re not Muslims, and replacing our laws with those of their own religious sect terrorists then it’s pretty unfair to call these guys terrorists. I’m just saying…

If liberals don’t want to call those guys terrorists then it’s pretty messed up to jump on the big T-word bandwagon with these guys.

http://www.cnn.com/2…ests/index.html

Yeah, I just watched a short news clip on “The Hutaree” (Christian Warriors). What they planned was a pretty much textbook terrorist attack, causing more damage with the secondary than the primary. A quick example of what I’m talking about is usually whenever a terrorist plants a bomb at a site, there’s usually a secondary bomb set to blow when more people have gathered around the site (eg: onlookers, EMS, etc). In this case, after killing the one officer, they were going to attack more of them during the officers funeral. Yeah, I’d definitely label them as a terrorist group although I’d definitely put them in two categories (religious & national liberalism or “Patriot”). What the creepy part is about The Hutaree is that they answer to “God” and there’s no way to negotiate with those kinds of terrorists. The only way to get rid of them is to cut off their finances and/or makes sure the public loses all support for them (eventually that can get the members to give up as well). Another issue is that part of their long-term goal is to break down the government in which case, they can easily have cells break off and join with others that mainly work with different terrorist groups. It’s a good thing they got caught early while the group isn’t too big.

Clearly they’re terrorists.

Edit: I hate religion

I have to agree with Duendes on this one.

From what I understand terrorist do things to inspire fear in their enemies. Obviously kidnapping inspires fear but only to the people who were involved and not to the country as a whole. I think these people obviously are a little off their rockers and committed kidnapping and should be punished harshly for it. I don’t think they meant to hurt anyone or inspire any fear, so I don’t believe they should be considered terrorists.

lockEm said:

Wasn’t their plan to kill a cop and then use bombs to kill more cops during the funeral?

Yes

Lemm said:

From what I understand terrorist do things to inspire fear in their enemies. Obviously kidnapping inspires fear but only to the people who were involved and not to the country as a whole. I think these people obviously are a little off their rockers and committed kidnapping and should be punished harshly for it. I don’t think they meant to hurt anyone or inspire any fear, so I don’t believe they should be considered terrorists.

And wtf?

Lemm, I think you’re referring to the Baptist group in Haiti that “abducted” those kids. That’s a completely different group/story (IMO though, although I didn’t read to far into it, I believe they’re people who didn’t realize what they were doing, but meant well).

Religion has great potential since people can become passionate about it. However, passion swing both ways. It can be used for the greater good or the greater evil no matter how you see it.

It’s like a car, although it isn’t necessary, it can greatly improve your life, transporting you places quicker and easier. However, you can also use it to plow over a miles worth of bikers, ruining other people’s lives. I wish I can say “use it at your own risk” but it’s other people misusing it who ruin it for everybody.

Not everybody uses cars like this, but there’s always that small handful of assholes.

Any more questions on Terrorism? I feel like I need to brush up on my CJ skills

lockEm said:

Wasn’t their plan to kill a cop and then use bombs to kill more cops during the funeral?

That’s like baiting someone’s body by waiting for someone to come pick up their guns. Genius!

jk.

I think it’s an issue more related to propaganda than what defines a terrorist. This falls under terrorism. I think a lot of people associate terrorism with “Muslim” or someone with a Middle Eastern appearance and the media chose not to use the word “terrorist” for these white Americans. They’re perpetuating a stereotype, a mindset.

torankusu said:

lockEm said:

Wasn’t their plan to kill a cop and then use bombs to kill more cops during the funeral?

That’s like baiting someone’s body by waiting for someone to come pick up their guns. Genius!

 

jk.

*facepalm*

lockEm said:

Yeah I agree completely. These douchebags are terrorists, plain and simple. I’m actually kind of disgusted that the media chose not to call them terrorists because they’re white, and American.

Under the US government’s definition of “Terrorism”, they are terrorists (or so I think, *edited*, they’ve been changing the definition so many times in the past decade I’ve lost track). Terrorism or not they did a bad thing.

I’d really like to see if some cells from the KKK are going to be found to be connected to cells from Hutaree

Terrorism has become at least semi-successful in the past. Just look at the PLO.

Whoa guys, let’s hold up a second. They were convicted by a grand jury. Anyone who keeps up with things knows that you can get a grand jury to indict anyone for anything and once you’re brought in for questioning by the jury they can question you for as long as they want with no breaks, no legal counsel, and no chance to prepare a defense. I mean let’s face it, one of the charges is carrying or possessing a firearm during the crime they were planning, last I checked you had to actually commit the crime before being charged with it. Charging someone with PLANNING to use a firearm is one thing, charging them as though they’ve already used it is entirely illegal. I seem to remember a movie about this sort of thing…

I spent right at 30 seconds glancing over that article and found a charge that’s patently unconstitutional so how about we wait for some real court proceedings before we toss these guys under the buss? If it completely disappears in a few days that’s your que that this was all media hype.

Btw, any takers on how long before a lib uses this as a reason for more gun control?

MasterP said:

Whoa guys, let’s hold up a second. They were convicted by a grand jury. Anyone who keeps up with things knows that you can get a grand jury to indict anyone for anything and once you’re brought in for questioning by the jury they can question you for as long as they want with no breaks, no legal counsel, and no chance to prepare a defense. I mean let’s face it, one of the charges is carrying or possessing a firearm during the crime they were planning, last I checked you had to actually commit the crime before being charged with it. Charging someone with PLANNING to use a firearm is one thing, charging them as though they’ve already used it is entirely illegal. I seem to remember a movie about this sort of thing…

 

I spent right at 30 seconds glancing over that article and found a charge that’s patently unconstitutional so how about we wait for some real court proceedings before we toss these guys under the buss? If it completely disappears in a few days that’s your que that this was all media hype.

 

Btw, any takers on how long before a lib uses this as a reason for more gun control?

I think the “charges is carrying or possessing a firearm during the crime they were planning” part is related to conspiracy. They definitely had their motive which was easily displayed on their website, and they had traces of planning the operation via emails. I think finding a weapon on them that they were planning on using is a legitimate crime, especially when it was well documented, because they were caught conspiring an attack(<– this is the illegal part). The weapon thing is meant for a double whammy/safety. This however, is one of those iffy-laws that can be twisted around and used inappropriately but can be good when trying to put somebody away for a long time or they’ve somehow managed to get away with other crimes. A loose example can be when the feds can’t get enough evidence of violent crimes on mafias so they turn to the books.

Yeap, some group’s going to use this as support for gun control for sure.

Duendes said:

I think finding a weapon on them that they were planning on using is a legitimate crime, especially when it was well documented, because they were caught conspiring an attack(

That’s all well and good but the article doesn’t mention that they found weapons on them. In fact it doesn’t mention anything about the scene of their arrest at all. It doesn’t even mention that they actually found IED parts in their possession.