User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 4/20/2002 8:35:36 PM EDT
[#1]
Quoted: I do understand the point. I just think he's wrong, we are NOT "at war" with "the government". |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2002 8:43:07 PM EDT
[#2]
Quoted: Well since you're the one who doesn't think the Constitution is worth fighting for, why don't you and your kind leave? Our beliefs are closer than you know. I believe in our modern system. I think that we are able to stand together to make change. I take our right to vote very seriously. I do not believe that the government is waiting to kick down my door and kill my family because I choose to have firearms. I do not believe that two wrongs make a right. We are on the same page regarding Waco. I just do not believe that Tim M. is a martyr for the second ammendment. I believe in defending my country. I carry a weapon to DEFEND myself and my loved ones. It is my right by the constitution and the great state of Arizona. [soapbox] Sorry, that was a little long. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2002 8:48:08 PM EDT
[#3]
"When you're on the ground, and you're not in the rear of the action, you're right up front, you realize that the people fighting are no different from you. They've got a wife and kids at home, they've got a family. They don't want to be out there. And you don't want to be there. You realize you must fire on them or be killed yourself, that's the reality of war. When we took most of the surrendering Iraqis the first day and saw how badly they had been treated and learned that the Republican Guard was behind them, not to back them up, but to make them hold in position, it completely changed your view of the war.... I was taken aback by what I had been told. We all thought we were doing this for your country and these people are terrible, every single one of them. You get over there and you realize two things, they're not so terrible and how is this helping my country?"
-- MCVEIGH [url]http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,109478,00.html[/url] |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2002 8:57:41 PM EDT
[#4]
Quoted: Quoted: I do understand the point. I just think he's wrong, we are NOT "at war" with "the government". The "tanks" weren't exactly M1 Abrams. The fire was set by Koresh, et al IMO, and it was law enforcement, not war. The whole thing was wrong, but not for the reasons you want to believe. And I still believe that McVeigh was a sick bastard with no meaningful connection to people. Obviously intelligent, but stunted and wierd. Maybe if he HAD had a wife and/or kids, he wouldn't have acted on the need to destroy thousands of other people's lives. WTF did he think he was "saving" by destroying Americans and devastating their lives like that? This guy's no hero. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2002 9:01:53 PM EDT
[#5]
Quoted: Our beliefs are closer than you know. I believe in our modern system. I think that we are able to stand together to make change. I take our right to vote very seriously. I do not believe that the government is waiting to kick down my door and kill my family because I choose to have firearms. I do not believe that two wrongs make a right. We are on the same page regarding Waco. I just do not believe that Tim M. is a martyr for the second ammendment. I believe in defending my country. I carry a weapon to DEFEND myself and my loved ones. It is my right by the constitution and the great state of Arizona. The Founding Fathers wanted you to be armed with weapons that matched the government's weapons, so that the government could be kept in line if it treaded on Americans. Now you've got just a handgun and a semi-auto rifle. NOAH WEBSTER: "The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States." The laws and tax system are too complicated for voters to understand, especially after they have been brainwashed by the government's "educational system". JAMES MADISON: "It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood." BENJAMIN FRANKLIN: "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!" |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2002 9:05:15 PM EDT
[#6]
Well put, I do not have all of answers yet...I am working on it though.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2002 9:05:49 PM EDT
[#7]
Quoted: I think that it would be a better reflection of Blaze's feelings if it read: "Shooter69, I don't think! I'm anti-American! I'm one of the more pro-Constitution guys around. (I'm not.) Condemning the U.S. bombings of children in Afghanistan and Iraq! I'm just. This is just plain ignorant, unjustified, unconstructive debating behavior. I don't agree with everything BOG has said here, but I have no patience for those of you who are not satisfied to argue with what he DID say and find it necessary to put words into his mouth that he DID NOT say for you to argue with. Some of you guys remind me of "enforcers" for all-think-alike mob behavior. Those who stray too far from the flock, or look at the flock from a viewpoint other than one lying within the boundarys of the flock, must be shamed into conformity by whatever means necessary. They must be demonized by distorting what they say, and creating false links to evil ideas or evil behavior. I would have thought us advocates of evil "assault rifles" and "sniper rifles" and "saturday night specials" would have had too much our fill of these type tactics to use them on each other. [V] |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2002 9:15:31 PM EDT
[#8]
Quoted: The "tanks" weren't exactly M1 Abrams. The fire was set by Koresh, et al IMO, and it was law enforcement, not war. The whole thing was wrong, but not for the reasons you want to believe. And I still believe that McVeigh was a sick bastard with no meaningful connection to people. Obviously intelligent, but stunted and wierd. Maybe if he HAD had a wife and/or kids, he wouldn't have acted on the need to destroy thousands of other people's lives. WTF did he think he was "saving" by destroying Americans and devastating their lives like that? This guy's no hero. It was law enforcement? What law were the feds enforcing when they attacked the Americans in Waco? If you read the McVeigh quote above, you can see that he respected the humanity of the Iraqi soldiers; whereas you have yet to accept the humanity of all the innocent children killed in Japan, Germany, Afghanistan, and Iraq. Edited to add: SAMUEL ADAMS: "If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2002 9:16:45 PM EDT
[#9]
This has been a great thread. It is good to have these open discussions. They say some the best "evidence" against someone, is in their computer. That is the first thing that the government will take from our homes. It tells them who you communicate with, what sites you check out, etc. We all obviously have a common interest. Many times, we are "preaching to the chior".
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2002 9:19:19 PM EDT
[#10]
It was law enforcement? What law were the feds enforcing when they attacked the Americans in Waco? If you read the McVeigh quote above, you can see that he respected the humanity of the Iraqi soldiers; whereas you have yet to accept the humanity of all the innocent children killed in Japan, Germany, Afghanistan, and Iraq.[/quote] Once again, I agree. It still does not justify what McVeigh did. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2002 9:44:33 PM EDT
[#11]
Quoted: It was law enforcement? What law were the feds enforcing when they attacked the Americans in Waco? If you read the McVeigh quote above, you can see that he respected the humanity of the Iraqi soldiers; whereas you have yet to accept the humanity of all the innocent children killed in Japan, Germany, Afghanistan, and Iraq. "The ATF raided the Branch Davidian compound to serve arrest and search warrants as part of an investigation into illegal posession of firearms and explosives there." [url]http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/waco/topten.html#bureau[/url] McVeigh was a psychopath. What he has to say about his experiences only serves his own ends, not the truth. I certainly respect the humanity of those children alot more than McVeigh respected the humanity of the American infants and small children in OKC that day. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2002 9:51:14 PM EDT
[#12]
Quoted: ... It still does not justify what McVeigh did. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2002 9:52:19 PM EDT
[#13]
No matter what at least McVeigh is where he deserves to be now [devil]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2002 9:57:59 PM EDT
[#14]
Quoted: Quoted: I think that it would be a better reflection of Blaze's feelings if it read: "Shooter69, I don't think! I'm anti-American! I'm one of the more pro-Constitution guys around. (I'm not.) Condemning the U.S. bombings of children in Afghanistan and Iraq! I'm just. This is just plain ignorant, unjustified, unconstructive debating behavior. I don't agree with everything BOG has said here, but I have no patience for those of you who are not satisfied to argue with what he DID say and find it necessary to put words into his mouth that he DID NOT say for you to argue with. Some of you guys remind me of "enforcers" for all-think-alike mob behavior. Those who stray too far from the flock, or look at the flock from a viewpoint other than one lying within the boundarys of the flock, must be shamed into conformity by whatever means necessary. They must be demonized by distorting what they say, and creating false links to evil ideas or evil behavior. I would have thought us advocates of evil "assault rifles" and "sniper rifles" and "saturday night specials" would have had too much our fill of these type tactics to use them on each other. [V] I concede. I am guilty of a variety of logical fallacies of misrepresentation. I retract. Please identify the fallacies in your posts. I propose: Inductive fallacies - Hasty Generalization - Unrepresentative Sample Prejudicial Language Attacking the Person Style over Substance Non-Support You can talk about debate club! |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2002 10:02:10 PM EDT
[#15]
Quoted: American Government of every facet will always remember that event and show restraint. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2002 10:27:56 PM EDT
[#16]
Quoted: "The ATF raided the Branch Davidian compound to serve arrest and search warrants as part of an investigation into illegal posession of firearms and explosives there." [url]http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/waco/topten.html#bureau[/url] Anyone who tries to take an American's firearms or explosives is an [b]outlaw[/b]. U.S. CONSTITUTION: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." McVeigh was a psychopath. What he has to say about his experiences only serves his own ends, not the truth. I certainly respect the humanity of those children alot more than McVeigh respected the humanity of the American infants and small children in OKC that day. McVeigh was no more psychopathic than Roosevelt, Truman, Bush, Clinton, or Bush Jr. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2002 10:38:53 PM EDT
[#17]
IMHO, you wrote that you were beginning your study of medicine and that you think I am "nuts"; but then you deleted the message.
DIAGNOSTIC AND STATISTICAL MANUAL OF MENTAL DISORDERS, AMERICAN PSYCHIATRIC ASSOCIATION, INTRODUCTION, PAGE XXXI: "Neither deviant behavior (e.g., political...) nor conflicts that are primarily between the individual and society are mental disorders." Let me know if you want help with your homework. You'll get to psychiatry in your 2nd or 3rd year. Try attacking my argument instead of me. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2002 2:23:26 AM EDT
[#18]
I did enjoy and benefit from this heated discussion, and thank everyone who engaged seriously.
Final references to government-published ideas (I'm not allowed to advocate them, so I won't): "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men ... are endowed ... with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.-- ... That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government." [url]http://www.tapco.com/product_information.asp?number=MAN007&back=yes&dept=63&last=62[/url] |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2002 7:50:52 AM EDT
[#19]
The DSM is weak when it comes to etiology of the various mental disorders, and strongest in providing a behavioral description of diagnostic categories. By any definition, McVeigh was a psychopath.
"There is a pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others occurring since age 18 years, as indicated by three (or more) of the following: failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest deceitfulness, as indicated by repeated lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure impulsivity or failure to plan ahead irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults reckless disregard for safety of self or others consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another " DSM-IV |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2002 8:45:13 AM EDT
[#20]
So you believe because you disagree with the actions of an unrighteous governement it is ok to kill anyone associated with the goverment? I think not! They are the pawns of the higher levels of goverment and work merely to put food on the table. They do not deserve to die.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2002 8:46:59 AM EDT
[#21]
Quoted: McVeigh was no more psychopathic than Roosevelt, Truman, Bush, Clinton, or Bush Jr. One of the most ignorant statements I've ever read. McVeigh slaughtered children. People forget that his reasons were personal, not principled. When he was rejected for/by Special Forces (for psychological reasons), he became bitter. This bitterness consumed him and poisoned his soul. Then he murdered women and children. ...and you admire this loser? Birds of a feather, I suppose..... |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2002 9:16:24 AM EDT
[#22]
Quoted: Quoted: McVeigh was no more psychopathic than Roosevelt, Truman, Bush, Clinton, or Bush Jr. One of the most ignorant statements I've ever read. McVeigh slaughtered children. I am curious about your statement. Do you believe that the names that BOG posted aren't somehow responsible for the death of women and children becuase they didn't drop the bombs or fire the rounds? I don't believe Mcveigh is a hero in any sense but if you are going to condem those who cause the death of women and children then there should be a pretty long list with lots of Americans on top of that list. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2002 9:40:04 AM EDT
[#23]
I'm being very specific here.
McVeigh knew who was in the building. He deliberately and purposefully killed them. He is a murderer of women and children. To try to equate this act with ANY act committed by ANY of the names he listed is pure moral relativism. AND intelectually dishonest. Being "responsible" for the death of "women and children" is not the same thing as deliberately MURDERING "women and children". Don't you know this? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2002 9:53:39 AM EDT
[#24]
Quoted: I'm being very specific here. McVeigh knew who was in the building. He deliberately and purposefully killed them. He is a murderer of women and children. To try to equate this act with ANY act committed by ANY of the names he listed is pure moral relativism. AND intelectually dishonest. Being "responsible" for the death of "women and children" is not the same thing as deliberately MURDERING "women and children". Don't you know this? I thought this discussion was about the death of non-combatants during war. If McVeigh believed he was at war for whatever reason he came up with, then is it still murder? You and I may not think we are at war with our government but if you felt you were at war, are you saying you wouldn't resort to whatever tactic you thought would bring victory to your cause. I understand the point you are making and if you were to judge McVeigh by those guidlines then yes he would be a murderer. If we are talking about murder during war then no he wouldn't be. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2002 10:03:30 AM EDT
[#25]
Just because someone "believes" that they are "at war", doesn't make it so.
If, for the sake of argument, he was "at war"... ...he's still a murderer. It's not as though, "in the heat of battle", he made a mistake, and accidentally killed those innocents. Nor were those federal agents using the daycare center as a "human shield". This was not "collateral damage". His target was the building. He was not in a situation where he had no choice, but to bomb the building, either. There are and were plenty of other targets he could have chosen. The "he was at war" argument is a joke. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2002 11:56:18 AM EDT
[#26]
Quoted: Just because someone "believes" that they are "at war", doesn't make it so. ... The "he was at war" argument is a joke. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2002 11:58:49 AM EDT
[#27]
Quoted: So you believe because you disagree with the actions of an unrighteous governement it is ok to kill anyone associated with the goverment? I think not! They are the pawns of the higher levels of goverment and work merely to put food on the table. They do not deserve to die. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2002 1:03:23 PM EDT
[#28]
Quoted: Quoted: Just because someone "believes" that they are "at war", doesn't make it so. ... The "he was at war" argument is a joke. You don't know? That's a shame. It's common sense to most folks. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2002 1:19:54 PM EDT
[#29]
Quoted: I'm being very specific here. McVeigh knew who was in the building. He deliberately and purposefully killed them. He is a murderer of women and children. To try to equate this act with ANY act committed by ANY of the names he listed is pure moral relativism. AND intelectually dishonest. Being "responsible" for the death of "women and children" is not the same thing as deliberately MURDERING "women and children". Don't you know this? Franklin Delano Roosevelt knew who was in Dresden. He deliberately and purposefully killed them. He is a murderer of women and children. Harry Ship Truman knew who was in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. He deliberately and purposefully killed them. He is a murderer of women and children. George Herbert Walker Bush knew who was in Baghdad. He deliberately and purposefully killed them. He is a murderer of women and children. William Jefferson Clinton knew who was in Belgrade. He deliberately and purposefully killed them. He is a murderer of women and children. George Walker Bush knew who was in Kabul He deliberately and purposefully killed them. He is a murderer of women and children. I'd like to note that I don't believe that the men listed above are "murderers" for what they felt they had to do to prosecute a war. I am simply inserting their names, and the names of places they have directed the military might of the united states at, despite knowing that women and children were in the line of fire, and almost certain to die (and in the case of Roosevelt and Truman, large numbers were knowingly comdemned to certain death.) |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2002 1:37:53 PM EDT
[#30]
Nonsense.
Absolute nonsense. Killing does not equal murder. Pure moral relativism. All of the deaths you mentioned were unfortunate, but inevitable side effects in the prosecution of JUST WARS. None of those deaths were in and of themselves the objective. McVeigh was a bitter loser who was pissed at the government, because he was rejected by Special Forces (for psychological reasons). He slaughtered those people because he was angry, and wanted to kill them. Nevermind. Anyone who defends McVeigh is an idiot. Period. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2002 1:55:42 PM EDT
[#31]
Quoted: Nonsense. Absolute nonsense. Killing does not equal murder. Pure moral relativism. All of the deaths you mentioned were unfortunate, but inevitable side effects in the prosecution of JUST WARS. None of those deaths were in and of themselves the objective. McVeigh was a bitter loser who was pissed at the government, because he was rejected by Special Forces (for psychological reasons). He slaughtered those people because he was angry, and wanted to kill them. Nevermind. Anyone who defends McVeigh is an idiot. Period. Who ever said I was defending McVeigh? I also never said that "killing" was equivilent to "murder." Moral relativism? You're saying it's okay to burn a city full of civillians to the ground, but it's NOT okay to strike a government target just because it happens to have a child care center in it, and [b]I'm[/b] the one with the problem of perspective? Now let me ask you a question--just what exactly constitutes a "just war" in your mind, and why? Was our little Serbian adventure, where we bombed one group of terrorists for picking on another group of terrorists a "just war?" I'm willing to concede to you that the deaths of federal employees (particularly of the BATF variety) was McVeigh's primary objective--but then again, that was the primary objective of Desden, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki--to demonstrate to the Germans and Japanese the power of America, and prove their chances of winning were nil. None of those cities was particularly valuable as a military target by itself. As you mentioned in another post, there were plenty of other targets that could have been chosen--but the objective was, in ALL of the above cases (OKC, Dresden, Hiroshima) was terror, and nothing more. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2002 2:09:19 PM EDT
[#32]
Your premise equates McVeigh (bitter, disturbed individual) with the United States (Nation, leader of the free world).
You must think highly of him. Maybe Ted Bundy and Jeffrey Dahmer were fighting wars, too? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2002 2:12:17 PM EDT
[#33]
Quoted: Quoted: How do you determine whether a fight is a "war"? That's a shame. It's common sense to most folks. And what's your point in attacking the persons who are expressing their opinions here? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2002 2:16:20 PM EDT
[#34]
Quoted: Your premise equates McVeigh (bitter, disturbed individual) with the United States (Nation, leader of the free world). As you didn't bother to actually answer the question posed to you, I'm just going to consider you a troll and move on. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2002 2:51:11 PM EDT
[#35]
Quoted: Just because someone "believes" that they are "at war", doesn't make it so. If, for the sake of argument, he was "at war"... ...he's still a murderer. It's not as though, "in the heat of battle", he made a mistake, and accidentally killed those innocents. Nor were those federal agents using the daycare center as a "human shield". This was not "collateral damage". His target was the building. He was not in a situation where he had no choice, but to bomb the building, either. There are and were plenty of other targets he could have chosen. The "he was at war" argument is a joke. The sad fact here is that you try to justify your argument with emotions and that fine trait of "America can do no wrong" attitude. In fact you using the emotional ploy only tends to link you with the like of the anti-gunners who use the death of a child to further their argument. You haven't answered my original question. If you felt you were at war would you attack any target that you felt would benefit your cause? Since neither of us know what he was really thinking, and only an idiot would claim to know what he was really thinking you just waste your breath. I only posed a hypothetical theory of what his motive was. You have injected your belief of what his motive was as the whole point to the argument. I know that I am not defending him, but you insist that I am. I am only arguing the point of what is exceptable in a time of war or not. Since you don't wish to discuss that point then I guess you don't have a good answer. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2002 3:59:15 PM EDT
[#36]
If one considers his claim that he was "at war" with the US to be valid, then that person is defending him.
You are elevating him from mass murderer to combatant in a war (a war that doesn't exist). You claim that I'm acting in an "America can do no wrong manner". That's foolish. I do believe, however, that anyone who kills hundreds of MY FELLOW AMERICANS (children, too) is a bad person, not worthy of admiration. REGARDLESS OF THE CAUSE. So if you are insulted when I call those of you who defend, or even admire McVeigh "losers", or "idiot".... ...good. You are just that. What McVeigh was thinking is irrelevant. If he THOUGHT that he was actually at war, who cares? His actions are what matters. His act was cowardly. If you admire him, or his cause, you are a loser. If you don't admire him, then you should not feel insulted. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2002 4:06:25 PM EDT
[#37]
Quoted: Moral relativism? You're saying it's okay to burn a city full of civillians to the ground, but it's NOT okay to strike a government target just because it happens to have a child care center in it, and [b]I'm[/b] the one with the problem of perspective? No Zak, your perspective is not a fault, but by deconstructing these two events, and ignoring all of the facts of the situations, as to make the two seem equal, morally, you have demonstrated MORAL RELATIVISM, superbly. Don't you think? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2002 4:10:49 PM EDT
[#38]
[rolleyes]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2002 4:14:12 PM EDT
[#39]
Quoted: [rolleyes] Eloquent. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2002 4:20:52 PM EDT
[#40]
Quoted: Quoted: [rolleyes] Eloquent. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2002 4:52:05 PM EDT
[#41]
Quoted: Is a car bombing against a target with mixed civilian/government personnel inside your idea of war? Bombing a target with mixed civilian/government personnel inside is the US' idea of war. Quoted: Your premise equates McVeigh (bitter, disturbed individual) with the United States (Nation, leader of the free world). You must think highly of him. No, I can't answer for BOG, but I think LOWLY of both of them. BOG has some good points. It is no more moral to car bomb a building with children and innocents in that it is to bomb from the sky with airplanes a bulding with children and innocents, even IF we are at war, and that war is declared and just. We haven't been in a declared war since WWII, which makes all those wars UNjust, and the declared wars we were in(WWI, WWII, Spanish-American, War of Southern Independence, Mexican, et al) since 1812 were all UNjust as well. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2002 5:02:31 PM EDT
[#42]
which makes all those wars [red]UN[/red]just, and the declared wars we were in(WWI, WWII, Spanish-American, War of Southern Independence, Mexican, et al) since 1812 were all [red]UN[/red]just as well. Thats cute. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2002 5:13:10 PM EDT
[#43]
Quoted: Quoted: Moral relativism? You're saying it's okay to burn a city full of civillians to the ground, but it's NOT okay to strike a government target just because it happens to have a child care center in it, and [b]I'm[/b] the one with the problem of perspective? No Zak, your perspective is not a fault, but by deconstructing these two events, and ignoring all of the facts of the situations, as to make the two seem equal, morally, you have demonstrated MORAL RELATIVISM, superbly. Don't you think? Forgive me then. By your standard, I have no choice but to declare that killing fifty thousand civilians by burning their city to the ground is MUCH MUCH WORSE than killing less than two hundred people by blowing up a federal building. Are you happy now? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2002 5:20:10 PM EDT
[#44]
In McVeigh's defense, I ask, what would you have done? The government demonstrated its willingness to use unjust force against its own citizens in Waco and Ruby Ridge incidents, it has been blatantly trampling on the constitutional rights of the American people for years. Federal agents get away with murder by hiding behind their badges and the power of their offices. No political solution lie in sight since the politicians have no real interest in reducing their own power. WHAT DO YOU DO? Is there anything to be done to save liberty in this country?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2002 6:07:45 PM EDT
[#45]
Quoted: If you admire him, or his cause, you are a loser. Whoa, Nelly! I'd have to say that I agree very much with nearly everything McVeigh [i]claimed[/i] his cause was about. Excess federal power, governmental disregard for individual rights, militarization of civil law enforcement, bully-style American foreign policy, etc. I don't agree with his actions at all, as they violated the very individual rights he claimed he was sticking up for. And for a lot of other reasons. But I guess it's fair to say I "admire" his cause. Does that make me a loser? And, Cincinnatus, are you NOT concerned about any of these things yourself? I find that hard to believe, and/or disturbing. If you are concerned, then I join with jz02 in asking what would, or more importantly, what ARE you doing about it? It seems to me that the lack of visible concern or positive action by so many of us was one factor that pushed McVeigh over the edge, and led him to try and do too much action with too little thinking. So what ARE you doing? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2002 4:38:46 AM EDT
[#46]
Quoted: In McVeigh's defense, I ask, what would you have done? The government demonstrated its willingness to use unjust force against its own citizens in Waco and Ruby Ridge incidents, it has been blatantly trampling on the constitutional rights of the American people for years. Federal agents get away with murder by hiding behind their badges and the power of their offices. No political solution lie in sight since the politicians have no real interest in reducing their own power. WHAT DO YOU DO? Is there anything to be done to save liberty in this country? You act as though he had no choice. Nonsense. Well guys, put your money where your mouths are. Join him. Become part of an active revolution to overthrow the government of the United States. I'll continue to lobby and VOTE, as a means of change, because any revolutionary that supports what McVeigh did, IS NOT CAPABLE OF CREATING A MORE JUST GOVERNMENT TO REPLACE THE ONE THAT EXISTS. I'll say it again. McVeigh had no qualms with his government, UNTIL they told him he couldn't be a Green Beret (for psychological reasons). Apparently, their anaysis of his character was dead on. After that failure, he blamed it all on the US. Just because they uncovered the very flaw in his character that caused him to snap, and kill innocents. Waco and Ruby Ridge are not what's in dispute. It's McVeigh. If you guys want to have him as your standard bearer, fine. It will only HURT your cause, and doom it to failure. Good luck. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2002 9:16:30 AM EDT
[#47]
If McVeigh really wanted to make a statement w/o becoming reviled by virtually the whole population, he should have taken out those responsible for Waco...and only those responsible for Waco.
Killing children in the process of payback sucks. If McVeigh's targets were dropped one at a time with no collateral damage he might still be alive and all those innocent people would be too. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2002 9:18:41 AM EDT
[#48]
Wobblin,
Have you read "The Lion's Game" by Nelson DeMille? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2002 9:21:05 AM EDT
[#49]
Quoted: Wobblin, Have you read "The Lion's Game" by Nelson DeMille? No. Elaborate please. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2002 9:25:29 AM EDT
[#50]
Story of a child who lost his family during the 1986 bombing of Qadhafi's compound who has grown up with a hate for Americans and the pilots involved in the bombing run. The now grown man travels to America, and after an atrocious terrorist's arrival hunts the pilots and crew.
[edited to add: I feel like I've mentioned this book before on this board. Seems to be right up the alley of so many of you guys, and the recommendation seems to be related to so many threads.] |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
