Fred Phelps, anyone?
Also perhaps the Lord’s Resistance Army in Uganda, which operates under a sort half-baked Christian theology mixed with animist beliefs - Among other things they claim they want to base rule in Uganda on the Ten Commandments.
By the way Malthus, though the Nizari Isma’ilis ( Assassins ) are an interesting al-Qaeda/ObL parallel, I’m not sure how exact it is. They did commit assassinations ( as the name would imply ), but did not target what could be considered “civilians” in a contemporary sense ( we would, but folks back then wouldn’t - they targeted the Sunni administrative establishment, which at times included religious dignitaries ).
I’m not sure if the same can be said for the Zealots, but I suspect so.
Relevant excerpt:
The contemporary sources in both Persia and Syria suggest that the Isamaili terror was directed against specific persons, for specific purposes, and that apart from a few, quite exceptional outbreaks of mob violence, their relations with their Sunni neigbors were fairly normal. This seems true both of the Ismaili minorities in the towns, and of Ismaili territorial rulers, in their dealings with their Sunni colleagues.
From The Assassins:A Radical Sect in Islam by Bernard Lewis ( 1987, Oxford University Press - first printing 1967, Weidenfield and Nicholson ).
- Tamerlane
Kalt: Well, the three examples I listed ( Boermag, Aum Shinrikyo, and Lord’s Resistance Army ) would all be considered modern.
Assuming they are good parallels of course, which might be open to debate.
- Tamerlane
vibotronic: Far as I know Fred Phelps has not penly solicited for the muder of anyone ( death and destruction “from above”, perhaps, but not murder ), vile though he is in every other way.
On the other hand the underground Army of God has claimed responsibility for some abortion clinic and lesbian nightclub bombings ( and, I think, shootings ). However there is some question whether that is a cohesive organization or just a loose association of nutballs that use the name as a calling card.
Then there are the various branches of the Christian Identity Movement, some of which are more violent than others.
- Tamerlane
The Crusaders met armies in open battle. The atrocities they committed were typical of their era.
The Inquisition concentrated on purely local dissent. They didn’t export their activities. (That was done by civil authorities, often opposed by missionaries.)
The IRA is only “religious” to the extent that the Orange Orders define themselves as being exclusively Protestant. A fanatical Irish nationalist need not be Catholic to be in the IRA. However, the Orange Orders, on the other hand, are so religiously fanatical that they prohibit membership to anyone who had even one Catholic parent.
I should point out that the Orange orders, for all their divisiveness, are not directly terrorist organizations (though they certainly have strong associations with terrorists).
I’ve read this a few times and I’m not at all sure what you mean by it. Could you elaborate?
How is one ‘groups’ religious affiliation in any way connected to the definition of another?
Only if you regard the group’s as being in fundamental opposition to each other - i.e. each group is defined, at least in part, by its opposition to the other.
So the Orange Order idenfities itself (and the community it seeks to represent or personify) as “Protestant” and therefore all those who oppose or attack it as “anti-Protestant”.
The IRA would deny vigorously that they are anti-Protestant and would point out (correctly, at least in theory) that there might be other reasons for opposing the Orange Order than its Protestant character. Even if the IRA were anti-Protestant this would not, of course, make them “Catholic”. But it is probably the case that all or virtually all IRA volunteers are (at least nominally) Catholic and that the majority (but certainly not all) of its victims are Protestants.
Exactly my point. I don’t think any definition of the IRA would say they are diametrically opposed to the Orange Order, or even to Protestantism in general.
They (the IRA) are apposed to the continuation of British Rule in the six counties of NI, and whist stemming from catholic communities are really a political organisation, not a religious one.
But how I was reading the post by Dogface was that he saw the IRA as some direct dichotomy of the Orange Order, which is plainly false. That’s why I was asking for his clarification.
Sorry for the hijack.
BTW all the IRA men I have met have been atheist and “socialists”*
*Well that’s what they said 
Talking of the IRA and the Protestant paramilitaries, the Rev. Ian Paisley (a presbyterian minister), leader of the Democratic Unionist Party qualifies as being an Osama-a-like, as he has very clear connections to terrorist groups and a very strong hatred for all things Catholic.
I’m curious to hear about these ‘very clear’ connections the DUP have with terrorism. The latter part I would agree with though, BTW.
Much as I detest the man, I don’t think this is true or fair. He doesn’t have “very clear connections to terrorist groups”.
And to describe his as a “presbyterian minister”, while correct, probably needs expansion. He has never had any connection with the Presbyterian Church in Ireland (19% of the population of Northern Ireland) but is the Moderator of the Free Presbyterian Church, which he founded (~1% of the population).
To be fair to MC, some tenuous connections have been identified between the DUP and such’ private armies’ as the UVF, the Third Force, and the Ulster Resistance.
The latter being probably the most implicit connection (as he, Paisley, founded it), but the DUP severed all links once the acquisition of arms was on the agenda.
Sorry again for the continued hijack.
SDMB rule #74: unless you want a hijack, never say uninformed things about politics in Ireland.
Back to the OP: how about Oliver Cromwell? I think he fits the ‘Osama rules’ quite aptly.
Mentioning Cromwell in a thread with a couple of Irish people posting in it probably isn’t a good idea as well re: Hijack
And what about those Campbells, slaughtering the MacDonalds at the massacre at Glencoe?
[sub]might as well get the Scots involved, too…[/sub]
Well it’s not exactly that I’m being complementary about Cromwell.
Here are my humble parallels:
Motivated by hatred of the establishment’s decadence; execution of the head of state.
Religious puritanism: banning Christmas, theatres, etc.
Religious intolerance/ethnic cleansing: ‘to hell or to Connacht’.
Indiscriminate terror and murder of innocents: the Drogheda massacre (coincidentally, the number killed here is close to the number killed on 9/11 - 3,500, though a good number of them were soldiers).
Remind you of anyone?
Much as I hate to admit it - damn, I like my myths - most historians now agree that Cromwell’s “Drogheda massacre” never happened, at least in the traditional memory of it.
There is no evidence that any civilians were killed. It is certainly true that defeated soldiers were killed, but this was regarded as acceptable in warfare at the time, and was widely practiced.