The perpetrator was a white, Catholic, Republican, American NRA
What an idiot.
McVeigh didn't commit the Oklahoma attack on behalf of his religion, for his race, for his NRA membership, or because he was (gag) a Republican. He belonged to a militia group that didn't believe in the Federal government (a non-united states Republican).
Not to mention that after Oklahoma there *was* a lot of attention put on militia groups, contrary to the nonsense of this article.
July 12th, 2007 12:47pm
McVeigh was a white supremecist? That's the first I've heard of that. I don't believe it, smells like bullshit. His friend Terry Nichols was married to a colored gal.
July 12th, 2007 12:58pm
The disinformation of this group really does know no bounds.
Apparently the whole McVeigh thing was hush hush because he superficially and selectively correlated with conservative beliefs (in the same way that Hitler was a vegetarian), despite Clinton being in power for 5 years after Oklahoma.
And apparently this right wing cabal not only is hush hush about Oklahoma, they've done a mind meld on all of the poor liberals as well, stopping them from talking about it as well.
July 12th, 2007 1:04pm
There is a strange connection between Timothy McVeigh and Jose Padilla that isn't fully understood.
And neither of them are talking.
July 12th, 2007 1:15pm
Padilla isn't said to be capable of a lot of rational thought any more. Apparently the "interrogation" techniques have not been good for his sanity.
But there was a shitload of attention placed on militia groups after this. ATF guys were crawling all over Dexter, MI and going nuts because every pickup truck in the town has both diesel fuel and fertilizer in the bed. It is (or was at the time) a farm community. A friend of mine grew up there and lives there now. Law enforcement would go nuts at his house, where there's also a large kennel of German Shepherd dogs (sweet and friendly dogs too, unless you look like you mean harm to their people).
>> Padilla isn't said to be capable of a lot of rational thought any more. Apparently the "interrogation" techniques have not been good for his sanity. <<
Oh cry me a river! They follow Wednesday night water-polo with soft-shell crab instead of Swedish deep-tissue massage and suddenly they're mentally unfit to stand trial?
July 12th, 2007 1:46pm
the key point is that after the Oklahoma bombings, we didn't freak the fuck out and dramatically expand the powers of the executive branch, pass knee jerk legislation that directly conflicts with several main tenants of the US Constitution, and enable a color coded alert system that is permanently parked between yellow and orange.
Yet we still caught the bad guys and brought them to justice.
July 12th, 2007 1:48pm
July 12th, 2007 1:50pm
hey, we didn't freak out after the 1993 World Trade Center bombing either.
but fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, quit fucking fooling me.
July 12th, 2007 1:55pm
I got a better quote for you:
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety"
July 12th, 2007 1:58pm
Nothing in the OP tells me why the author is an idiot. Whether you perform a terrorist act in the name of getting pussy, or in the name of Allah/God/Jesus/Buddha, it is still a terrorist act and should be treated that way by our politicians, military, and media.
But it wasn't treated that way because we tend not to characterize whites as demons sufficient enough to motivate a movement such as the "War on Terra". Hitler is the exception that proves the rule.
Granted, we weren't as experienced back then.
Bring on the surveillance and the paranoia. Oh wait, we got that after the brown people. They were the last straw, not McVeigh.
>But it wasn't treated that way because we tend not to characterize whites as demons sufficient enough to motivate a movement such as the "War on Terra".
"Islamic" terrorism (e.g. terrorists groups recruiting based upon Islamic dogma) didn't start with 9/11, so when it hit American soil -- not as a single act, it should be mentioned, but as a military-like multi-pronged operation -- it wasn't a one off, but was the materialization of something that had been feared for decades.
It was the start of something, it seemed, rather than a contained event.
Turning into a "brown versus white" think just doesn't make any sense at all.
July 12th, 2007 2:25pm
We got here because the current president is a moron and abandoned the previous administration's very successful anti-terror strategies. Bin Laden couldn't launch his attacks under the Clinton administration because Clinton kept the Taliban very busy in Afghanistan, draining resources and attention. When Bush stopped funding for the Taliban's opposition, the Bin Laden suddenly had the time, resources and breathing room to fuck with the Americans in a much bigger way.
Although those brown bastards aren't to be trusted.
> McVeigh was a white supremecist? That's the first I've heard of that.
Big surprise, PE hasn't heard of something :-)
Seriously, I believe he was on the fringes of that area. He certainly had the Turner Diaries (which is a white supremecist book), even going so far as to photocopy his favorite pages.... I thought this common knowledge, it was certainly in the news and newspaper at the time of his trial.
July 12th, 2007 2:55pm
> we tend not to characterize whites as demons sufficient .... Hitler is the exception that proves the rule.
And Stalin, and Mussolini, and Franco, and David Karesh, and, Paris Hilton, and the French and the Canadians, etc.
No really, McVeigh got a worse sentence than the 1993 WTC bombers (which did not cause a huge anti-Arab attack).
The Franklin quote is trite. People *do* trade freedom for security. See for example the drunk driving thread (ie, one can be arrested for drunk driving, ie, not hurting anyone, in order to increase overall safety). Or the CCTV thread.
July 12th, 2007 3:22pm
You can always argue what is essential and what is temporary :)
July 12th, 2007 3:31pm
"The Franklin quote is trite"
It is my suspicion that Franklin was not referring to local ordanences, but rather matters of the constitution and federal governance.
How trite of you. I would encourage you read a little more of Franklin's writings. I did not just pick that one out of a hat.
July 12th, 2007 3:34pm
Wasn't he the one promoting one-bagger women as the optimal sexual partner?
July 12th, 2007 3:35pm
The Franklin quote is on point, but it's pointless.
Franklin himself did not support unlimited individual freedom, so who is to say what choice he would make in a modern context with different facts to those he faced in the 18th century
And in any case, even if he truly meant what he said, no matter how brilliant he was, it doesn't necessarily mean he was right at the time, let alone right now.
July 12th, 2007 3:43pm
no. But it certainly makes sence in hindsight, does it not?
July 12th, 2007 3:46pm
it makes sense in hindsight, but not at his time, and not in ours?
It's trite because the assumption that freedom has infinite value is false. People trade a little bit of freedom for a chunk of safety all the time: in their jobs (you can't do whatever you want, but it's nice to have a secure income flow), in their relationships, in their gun control laws, etc.
Arguments over what is 'essential liberty', of course, the exact arguments over what is a right and what is a privilege. Which is something that keeps changing (ask a teenager if it is a right or a privilege to own/drive a car).
July 12th, 2007 5:45pm
You can NOT turn this issue in to a subjective arguement.
a right to trial, habeus corpus, is spelled out in the Bill of Rights, which has been recinded. George Bush alone (or one of his appointees) can now pick you off the street, call you (rightly or wrongly) an enemy combatant, hold you indefinately, without legal representation or trial, or even notification to your family. That is a fact.
A teen's wish to drive a car is not the issue here, dude.
July 12th, 2007 5:53pm
George Bush is an asshole.
But what does that have to do with whether quoting Ben Franklin can usefully inform this discussion?
July 12th, 2007 5:55pm
because when you allow your freedoms to be taken away for the temporary feeling of security, we have exactly that:
Asshole people abusing power. Taking away Habeus corpus. The Patriot Act. Illegial Wiretaps. The exact shit that is going down RIGHT NOW.
July 12th, 2007 5:58pm
how can you argue that quote is NOT relevant to the discussion at hand?
July 12th, 2007 5:59pm
I agreed it was relevant.
But I said it was pointless, as in uninformative.
I already told you why: We have no real insight into what Franklin would have thought about today's issues. And even if we did, just because Franklin was smart, he was right.
Argument by quotation, is not worthy of the title argument. You can find some famous quote to arguably support almost any position, just because you like the person who made the quote, doesn't mean the quote applies or the position that is being advanced is correct.
July 12th, 2007 6:06pm
> And even if we did, just because Franklin was smart, he was right.
And even if we did, just because Franklin was smart, DOES NOT MEAN THAT he was right.
July 12th, 2007 6:07pm
The quote is not really at issue dude. It was counter to "fool me once shame on you. fool me twice I'm gonna mess you up"
As for the contemporary relevance of the quote, if you do some googling you will find it was successfully presented in debate within the US Congress, as well as the British Parliment in the past few years.
July 12th, 2007 6:14pm
You keep arguing the quote is relevant. So what? Nobody disputes that it's relevant.
The point of dispute is whether it informs the debate.
Here are some other quotes about freedom. Perhaps I should just pick one, point you at it, and say, there you go... no further discussion is necessary.
"The fact, in short, is that freedom, to be meaningful in an organized society must consist of an amalgam of hierarchy of freedoms and restraints."
"It is easy to take liberty for granted, when you have never had it taken from you."
"Most people want security in this world, not liberty."
"Order without liberty and liberty without order are equally destructive."
"Liberty doesn't work as well in practice as it does in speeches."
July 12th, 2007 6:26pm
Again, the quote is not really at issue dude. It was counter to "fool me once shame on you. fool me twice I'm gonna mess you up"
The issue at hand is what we have enthusiatically given up in response to an arab threat versus what we have accomplished in the past without any such a sacrifice against a similiar internal militia threat.
July 12th, 2007 6:38pm
Well that's easy:
1. Bin Laden got lucky.
Imagine a normal distribution of terrorist attacks designed to cause mass casualties. Where a particular attack falls on the distribution is largely a factor of luck, because terrorist attacks are generally unique and unpredictable events done by unpredictable people, where chance plays a major role in determining the final outcome.
Most attacks cause relatively few casualties.
But occassionally, because of the distribution, there will be outliers with extreme numbers.
9/11 was an outlier.
2. A moron is president.
July 12th, 2007 6:48pm
Ben Franklin agrees
July 12th, 2007 6:50pm
>Yet we still caught the bad guys and brought them to justice.
Because a Democrat was in office.
The opening of the Turner Diaries was that a bomb went off outside a government building, the government clamped down, and the public revolted overthrowing the government. That was going to be the "script" for the people involved.
At the time, I didn't believe that McVeigh had done it, because it was wrapped up too neatly, and too quickly. What changed my mind was reading an article in 2600 magazine about the testimony of how they traced his calling cards, the organizations that issued them (white supremacist/separatist) and how he added funds to top up the calling cards. It would have been harder to trace what he did if he had just purchased calling cards at the local kwikimarts, but instead, he deliberately chose ones that funded white supremacists and white separatists.
I *do* remember lots of coverage of middle easterners getting arrested, until it was revealed that McVeigh had done it.
July 12th, 2007 11:08pm
I hadn't heard of the Turner diaries since I don't keep up with all the latest in that sort of crap.
Looks kind of boring and depressing.
I read Mein Kampf because everyone should read it, just as everyone should read the Bible, the Koran, etc - important historical document. But This Turner thing doesn't seem to be professional enough to influence more than a couple of lunatics.
As to this whole thread, al Qaeda is an international organization and the leader was hiding in Afghanistan. Their intent was to continue attacking the US with even more terror cells.
With Oklahoma city, it was a couple of lunatics acting alone.
There really is a big difference between those two scenarios.
July 12th, 2007 11:38pm
While McVeigh was on trial in Denver, Captain Craig Button broke away from formation with a fully loaded A-10 (4 live 500# bombs, not dummies, and full load for the gun) just after refueling and headed for Denver. He crashed into Gold Dust Mountain. The wreck wasn't found for quite some time. Was he flying to attack McVeigh as a form of revenge? Was he flying to attack the courthouse to free McVeigh? The Air Force won't tell. The bombs were not found at the impact site, nor were residue/craters found indicating that they detonated in the collision.
The news stories carefully ignore the McVeigh trial going on when this happened.
July 13th, 2007 9:52am
Peter AND Practical Economist:
Both your arguements are almost the most absurd thing I have ever heard.
Second only to the suggestion that catching Bin Laden would require massive changes to our constitution and basic freedoms we have enjoyed for the past 200+ years.
All we had to do was keep our eyes on the prize and *not* unilaterally invade a soveriegn foreign nation with nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks.
We had global support, global unification, and the global sympathy to get the job done.
And then then we invaded Iraq.
July 13th, 2007 7:31pm
What specifically are you objecting to?
July 13th, 2007 7:41pm
right to trial is gone, presedential power expanded with support of attourney general. several tenants of the constitution willfully violated by the Patriot act. FISA court laws willfully ignored, massive illegial wiretapping program. Illegial torture of untried suspects in illegial secret international prisons.
Known innocents fucked over.
All in the name of... what?
July 13th, 2007 7:53pm
>Illegal torture of untried suspects in illegial secret international prisons.
>Known innocents fucked over.
>All in the name of... what?
Because the republicans controlled all three branches of the government and they chose to commit these war crimes.
July 14th, 2007 12:08am
which happened ONLY because...
Americans favored a feeling of temporary security over long term freedoms.
July 14th, 2007 7:41pm