Terrorist attack fifteen years ago today

[Ivan Seeking]

[PLAIN]http://i.i.com.com/cnwk.1d/i/tim//2010/04/19/fgsdg_370x278.jpg

OKLAHOMA CITY (CBS/AP) Oklahoma City bombing survivors and family member gathered to commemorate the 15th anniversary of the federal building's attack and remember those who died...

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20002789-504083.html

Not the result of Islamic extremism, this was the result of homegrown discontent run amok. How many hate-radio jocks, disreputable news sources, and nuts, are planting the seeds of future attacks?

Sarah Palin's recent quote: Don't retreat, reload!
http://us4palin.com/gov-palin-dont-retreat-reload/

 

[MotoH]

Timmy M should have been drug through the streets and beat to death. Boils my blood.

May the victims have achieved a final peace.

 

[zomgwtf]

... should have been drug through the streets and beat to death. Boils my blood.

I think that was their line of thinking too.

Thanks for posting this Ivan I wasn't aware that it was the 15 year anniversary. I remember still when this happened, I was only 6 and I live quite far away but it still dominated the News for a pretty long time.

 

[mheslep]

Oklahoma was a terrible national tragedy. However, I don't recall any 10th anniversary PF posts on the subject. Where were the posts say five years ago about 'discontent run amok'?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_a_President
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ed...articles/2006/09/10/a_new_low_in_bush_hatred/

I hope the tragedy won't be exploited for a political agenda here as was done Clinton back then, and again recently.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/How-Clinton-exploited-Oklahoma-City-for-political-gain-91267829.html

 

[waht]

I vaguely remember the poem Tim wrote. It went like something like "I'm the captain of my soul," but then I think he plagiarized it.

 

[Jack21222]

Oklahoma was a terrible national tragedy. However, I don't recall any 10th anniversary PF posts on the subject. Where were the posts say five years ago about 'discontent run amok'?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_a_President
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ed...articles/2006/09/10/a_new_low_in_bush_hatred/

Left-wing pacifists don't often blow up buildings... they just protest in front of them.

 

[cronxeh]

MotoH I'm surprised you are anti McVeigh in this thread. He was a military man who opposed federal government, and almost always used the constitution as a source to rile against it. What he did was pure rage and he went too far, but what motivated him was anything but terrorism. It seems he chose violence instead of a more conventional approach and that is grass roots movement and political activism. The latter requires actual effort and an ability to deal with other people, and be able to form your ideas in a rational, logical way. I don't think he had it in him and instead he chose the violent outburst way, which accomplished nothing to deliver his message.

 

[mgb_phys]

I wonder if it happened today it would be called terrorism - or would that send mixed messages ?

 

[cronxeh]

I wonder if it happened today it would be called terrorism - or would that send mixed messages ?

Of course its terrorism. Anytime you use violence against a group of people to deliver your message you are a terrorist.

 

[MotoH]

MotoH I'm surprised you are anti McVeigh in this thread. He was a military man who opposed federal government, and almost always used the constitution as a source to rile against it. What he did was pure rage and he went too far, but what motivated him was anything but terrorism. It seems he chose violence instead of a more conventional approach and that is grass roots movement and political activism. The latter requires actual effort and an ability to deal with other people, and be able to form your ideas in a rational, logical way. I don't think he had it in him and instead he chose the violent outburst way, which accomplished nothing to deliver his message.

Terrorism is well defined as harming civilians for political gain. This man was a terrorist, and any knowing use of civilians to prove a point, is terrorism. It was terrorism then, and it would still be now.

 

[zomgwtf]

Terrorism is well defined as harming civilians for political gain.

I sure know my dictionaries give more than just this.

Besides cronxeh is saying that he wasn't MOTIVATED by terrorism, it's irrelevant if what he did is defined as terrorism: it wasn't his motivation.

Not that I agree, I'm pretty sure he was reading literature which had to do with attacks on USA and he carried out a similar attack which can be found in that literature.

 

[BoomBoom]

I wonder if it happened today it would be called terrorism - or would that send mixed messages ?

There certainly were more than a few people defending the guy that flew his plane into the IRS building a couple months ago...sad.

 

[mgb_phys]

Of course its terrorism. Anytime you use violence against a group of people to deliver your message you are a terrorist.

That's not the point though - whether you call it terrorism is a very deliberate political calculation.

Giving people the idea that it's also terrorism when committed by white Americans means you are justified in having anti-terrorism laws against white Americans but it makes it harder to reinforce the "terrorists are muslims therefore muslims are terrorists" message.

During the Northern Ireland "euphemism" in the 60s,70s and 80s the UK government was very careful not to refer to them as terrorists because that legitimizes their political position.

 

[cronxeh]

That's not the point though - whether you call it terrorism is a very deliberate political calculation.

Giving people the idea that it's also terrorism when committed by white Americans means you are justified in having anti-terrorism laws against white Americans but it makes it harder to reinforce the "terrorists are muslims therefore muslims are terrorists" message.

During the Northern Ireland "euphemism" in the 60s,70s and 80s the UK government was very careful not to refer to them as terrorists because that legitimizes their political position.

Mexican drug cartels who kill locals who have seen their drug deals go down are also terrorists. You may be conflicted with the definition of 'political message', but that does not mean that the perpetraitors are not terrorists. Anytime violence is used against a population to obtain an objective is terrorism. You are using terror, hence you are terrorizing. Ergo, you are a terrorist. What you are doing is terrorism.

It doesn't matter if some public official declared it terrorism or not, just like Saddam was a terrorist, bin Laden is a terrorist, so are the IRA, the Chechens, the homegrown snipers, bombers, suicide pilots, etc.

Just because they don't target you in particular, does not make them not terrorists.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

That's not the point though - whether you call it terrorism is a very deliberate political calculation.

Giving people the idea that it's also terrorism when committed by white Americans means you are justified in having anti-terrorism laws against white Americans but it makes it harder to reinforce the "terrorists are muslims therefore muslims are terrorists" message.

During the Northern Ireland "euphemism" in the 60s,70s and 80s the UK government was very careful not to refer to them as terrorists because that legitimizes their political position.

I believe that the government, and even much of the media, was reluctant to call the recent military base shooting an act of terrorism for the exact opposite reason you seem to indicate they may do such a thing. While I doubt that most people would hesitate to call an abortion clinic bombing an act of terrorism there was an overwhelming reluctance to call a muslim man of middle eastern descent and voiced sympathy for terrorists who shot up a military graduation ceremony a terrorist.

 

[mheslep]

Left-wing pacifists don't often blow up buildings... they just protest in front of them.

Pacifist doesn't imply any particular political persuasion.

 

[turbo]

Pacifist doesn't imply any particular political persuasion.

Perhaps not, but liberals do not often show up at political rallies packing handguns and semi-automatic copies of assault-rifles, so they can look "tough". The right seems to have a bit of an overcompensation problem involving weapons, camo, and other trappings associated with the military. Combine that with a bit of mindless nationalism and resentful anti-government sentiment, and there are lots of powder-kegs waiting to go off. McVeigh is commonly viewed as an aberration. The truth is that right-wing hate radio and FOX are nurturing a whole new crop of McVeighs. Clinton was right to say that "words matter".

The left is more commonly characterized by people like Danny Glover, who got himself arrested last week protesting the treatment of workers of a food-service company, or perhaps by the Berrigans, who were arrested numerous times for acts of civil disobedience against military installations and contractors.