I disagree with you, you have said that I have made excuses for Mc Veigh, seems to me that you have put words in my mouth. I don't appreciate that when I acknowledged what he did was wrong. Look at what you said right here, the problem here is you are assuming that I believe the government had a role in Okc which is false. I have never said the government had a role, the truth is I don't really know what happened that day, I don't think the government was involved. This is what I took offense too, I have not tried to excuse what a deranged mass murderer did. I find that offensive and repulsive. You can't prove that, you are assuming that. Maybe I was wrong to think that Waco sent Mc Veigh over the edge to where he did his murderous deed. That is my take anyway and here is another link to back it up. I think it is a pretty good assumption here. Oklahoma City bombing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Quote: Motivated by his hatred of the federal government and angered by what he perceived as its mishandling of the Waco Siege (1993) and the Ruby Ridge incident (1992), McVeigh timed his attack to coincide with the second anniversary of the deaths at Waco.
of course he did! that has never been questioned. and it is an excuse for the actions of a deranged individual. an individual who chose to respond to a tragedy by executing violence of an even worse kind. many people were angry over waco. but those people did not respond by attacking the govt killing 168 innocent people in the process. by allowing waco to be an excuse for the actions of an individual, it is shifting part of the blame onto something/someone other than mcveigh and nichols. it is their actions alone and their response to a tragedy that caused okc to happen. and it is my belief that mcveigh would have found some other reason to strike at the govt. he and nichols were involved in anti-govt militias before waco. it is my opinion that he was a fertilizer bomb waiting to go off. the rage over waco being so extreme as to perpetuate a mass murder is not normal rage. which is why i was trying to get an answer from you explaining your posts. previous posts contradicted that. thank you.
and i dont think we disagree. if ruby ridge and waco never happened, we cant know what mcV would have done. it isnt really relevant. the point we are making is that blowing up stuff is not acceptable as a form of protest, at least not for ruby ridge and waco. so there is no blame at all to directed at the government, even if it is true that mcveigh was motivated by whatever he said he was. his motivations do not justify his actions. perhaps if he lived in nazi germany and his family was being put into ovens, then he could justify blowing up a federal building. but he cant justify it with a couple of crazy standoffs with lunatics that went bad. thats what defines terrorism and makes it different than freedom fighting.
exactly. and this is why i get so angry when we are talking about 9/11 and some prick starts babling about "blowback" (or even worse, truther conspiracies). lets put the blame where it belongs.
I agree but at the same time the government can not operate the way it did with, Waco, Ruby Ridge, etc or you will have people in this country with no freedoms and Nazi Germany right here. The ATF broke down the door and pointed guns at the individuals inside in the Elian Gonzalez case and guess what, there were no kooks inside that time. Another abuse of power.
I believe you. What I took offense to was your statement that Bill Clinton was the basic cause of OKC, not Timothy McVeigh. I find that offensive and repulsive. No, you were right about that. But Bill Clinton did not cause McVeigh to become an unrepentant murderous kook. But where does it say that Bill Clinton was responsible? That was what you said, amigo. The decisions at Waco and at Ruby Ridge were done by law enforcement officials doing their legal duties, not the President of the United States.
Sourdough, these people were breaking federal laws and refused to surrender to the authorities. Are you seriously suggesting that governments should take this kind of terrorist crap from armed and dangerous extremists. Are you seriously comparing the USA with Nazi Germany? :dis: Another example of people intentionally defying court orders, breaking federal laws, and refusing to cooperate with the police. Why do you consistently side with the law-breakers and suggest that the police/federal agents are the criminals. I am disturbed because of the resurgence of the hard-core, anti-government radicals in this country. We saw this behavior once before during the nineties. Lots of anti-government militias, shootings, olympic bombings, and such. They backed way off and got very quiet after the unexpectedly negative public reaction after OKC. But they are back in a big way. And the independents are watching with great interest at how they are embraced by the right-wing extreme republicans and the tea-baggers . . .
That is false, I never have said that. You are assuming just like Okie did. I didn't say that Bill Clinton caused McVeigh to become an unrepentant murderous kook.:lol: Like you have said this about other presidents and terrorism, it happened on their watch so they were responsible. You want me to believe that a sitting president could have a 51 day siege in his own country and not know anything about it or he or his attorney general not know or make decisions regarding the operation. I'm not buying that, that is naive. Elian Gonzalez is another example, the presidents personal lawyer was the lawyer for his dad. Which is fine I guess, no problems except the actions of the ATF once again. They weren't kooks this time. Again, I have blamed Bush 41 for Ruby Ridge and I have been as critical as Clinton, I have been totally consistent in this thread.
Obviously you didn't read the evidence I have posted on the prior page. Edit to insert link with information. http://www.docstoc.com/docs/3194083...Committee-on-Government-Reform-and-Oversight/ Quoteage 28 This investigation concluded that the ATF was predisposed to using aggressive military tactics in an attempt to serve the arrest and search warrant The ATF deliberately chose not to arrest Koresh outside the compound and instead chose to use a dynamic approach. The bias towards this approach may be explained from the culture within ATF. Yes and how many times do the regular police take care of the situation instead of special forces? How many times does the presidents attorney get involved and represent a party in the dispute. Why do you constantly ask questions without reading what really happened. You ONLY posted part of the story above. I have posted the whole story on the previous page and I am not doing that again! I honestly don't think it is as bad as you make it seem. I do think the government is responsible for some of this because of their past actions which have been described. I also think that politicians such as Clinton the other day and Pelosi walking in front of a bunch of peaceful protesters are rubbing people the wrong way. No offense intended but I think you are exaggerating. My understanding is that Stupak received death threats from his own party before he agreed to sign the health care bill. If you remember he agreed to sign it at the very last minute. I think both sides have serious extremists not just the right like you always claim. Btw, I find it interesting that you had so many issues during the Bush years about the Patriot Act, the Debt and the war overseas and yet you don't have a problem with anything Obama has done? If no other reason the Silence is quite amazing these days!
