Christian Terrorist Rudolph Sentenced What the Rightwing Press Will not Say Notorious Christian terrorist Eric Rudolph was sentenced to two life terms on Monday. The one-time fugitive had carried out four bombings that terrorized the southeastern areas of the United States. Among his crimes were the blowing up of an abortion clinic in Birmingham, Alabama, which killed a policeman, and a bombing of the 1996 Olympic Games in Atlanta, Georgia. As his sister-in-law made clear, Rudolph is driven by the ideology of the "Christian Identity" hate group. Terry Nichols of the Oklahoma City bombing was likewise connected to Christian identity and their "Elohim City". Of course, you won't see the headline above in American newspapers, even though any Muslim who acts as Rudolph did would be called an "Islamic terrorist" (a particularly objectionable term because "Islamic" means "having to do with the Muslim faith). It is like talking about "terrorism rooted in Christianity." Other things you won't see in the American press about this story (satire alert): Thomas Friedman will not write an op-ed for the New York Times about what is wrong with white southern Christian males that they keep producing these terrorists. He will also not ask why Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson are not denouncing Eric Rudolph every day at the top of their lungs. No reporter will interview frightened Iraqis about their fears at hearing that there are 138,000 armed Christians in their country belonging to the same faith as the bomber, Rudolph, some of them from his stomping grounds of Florida and North Carolina. Daniel Pipes will not write a column for the New York Post suggesting that white southern Christians be put in internment camps until it can be determined why they keep producing terrorists and antisemites. George W. Bush will not issue a statement that "Christianity is a religion of peace and we will not allow the Eric Rudolphs to hijack it for their murderous purposes." Frank Gaffney will not write a column for the Washington Post castigating the Republican Party for appeasement in surrendering to the terrorist threats of radical Christians, by now opposing reproductive rights. Max Boot will not point out that if the United States could only keep the Philippines in the early twentieth century by killing 400,000 Filipinos, than that was what needed to be done, and if the US can only beat back radical Christians by killing 400,000 of them, then that may just be necessary. Pat Buchanan will not write a column blasting King George III for having promoted the illegal immigration into the American south of criminal elements, whose maladjusted descendants are still making trouble.
There's quite a bit of difference in scale here. Rudolph and Nichols are a couple of looney tunes that did this. Al Queda is a worldwide organization complete with complex funding sources, leadership hierarchies and training camps. Rudolph and Nichols don't have countries/tribes/thugs harboring them, unlike our Al Queda counterparts. There are just a myriad a differences here that Juan Cole conveniently overlooks. Juan is just trying to make a stupid point and garner attention.
There is a framework here, worldwide and much-publicized, of a jihad-- which is a Muslim concept. Is there a Christian equivalent in play? I've read conflicting things about Rudolph: among them he admires Nietzsche musings rather than the Bible's.
You can't be serious. You're trying to claim that Eric Rudolph and Terry Nichols' organization is even remotely close in scale to Al Queda? You have to be kidding me. You tell me to watch the "Power of Nightmares"? I tell you to simply flip on the tv. Put it on Al-Jazeera if you don't like US channels... What a joke.
Hrmmm. Texxx, you seem a little defensive. More than a little hypocritical considering your stance that all liberals are "siding with the terrorists" when they bemoan the Iraq war or the Bush Administration. Does an organization's size affect it's categorization as a terrorist group? Are you uncomfortable with the "christian terrorist" classification?
and man i just thought about how stupid your comment sounds. basically you are insinuating that all of the right wing christians are terrorists when you reply like that to his statement. pure genius.
As soon as you begin to apologize for your posts that are nothing more than inciteful inaccuracies, I will do the same. Until then, enjoy them!
Umm, what does that have to do with anything? The "fundimentalist (sic) Christian" America doesn't support Eric Rudolph and Terry Nichols. Please.
1. You're putting words in my mouth like tigermission1 does. Please provide links to where I say that ALL liberals side with the terrorists. Thanks in advance. 2. I never said that Rudolph and Nichols' group wasn't a terrorist group. On the contrary, I consider them to indeed be one. I don't know why you brought that up, because I wasn't claiming otherwise. I'm uncomfortable comparing "Christian Terrorists" like Rudolph and Nichols to Muslim Terrorists due to the sheer scale differences. They are alike in that they are both sickening scum, but they are quite different in the size of their supporters, which sadly include some governments and perhaps thousands if not millions of people for the Muslim terrorists. Sorry, rhaddymantooth, looks like you've struck out yet again. Keep trying, though!
