He's on page 298 of his Google search looking for something to indicate McVeigh was actually a right winger. Give him some time, Brad. It was widely reported you know.
Coexist
- Thread starter CBradSmith
- Start date
Hmmmmm. Interesting. He was at war with the government because he thought they were infringing on the right to bear arms?
Tomato/tomato.
In his autobiography and letters/interviews he detailed considering assassinating politicians but ultimately settled on the Murrah Building, with full knowledge of a child care facility on premises. He rationalized to himself to go ahead with the target comparing it to US military forces bombing government buildings abroad.
I don't discredit that things like encroachment of 2nd Amendment Rights got him radicalized, but he clearly states in his own words that the bombing was in retaliation for Waco, Ruby Ridge, etc.
So you wouldn't call that right wing?
Also from his correspondence with Gore Vidal:
As to your letter, I fully recognize that “the general rebellion against what our gov’t has become is the most interesting (and I think important) story in our history this century.” This is why I have been mostly disappointed at previous stories attributing the OKC bombing to a simple act of “revenge” for Waco—and why I was most pleased to read your Nov. article in Vanity Fair. In the 4 years since the bombing, your work is the first to really explore the underlying motivations for such a strike against the U.S. Government—and for that, I thank you. I believe that such in-depth reflections are vital if one truly wishes to understand the events of April 1995.
Although I have many observations that I’d like to throw at you, I must keep this letter to a practical length—so I will mention just one: if federal agents are like “so many Jacobins at war” with the citizens of this country, and if federal agencies “daily wage war” against those citizens, then should not the OKC bombing be considered a “counter-attack” rather than a self-declared war? Would it not be more akin to Hiroshima than Pearl Harbor? (I’m sure the Japanese were just as shocked and surprised at Hiroshima—in fact, was that anticipated effect not part and parcel of the overall strategy of that bombing?)
Not sure what I'm supposed to consider right wing. You lost me a little on what your asking about.
As far as letters, guess McVeigh is all over the map.
In a letter to Observer journalist Tracy McVeigh, the convicted Oklahoma City bomber gave Papovich's phone number and pleaded: 'Ask him specifically for my 3-page letter "why I bombed the Murrah building'.
The following is that letter which shows the build-up of anger that McVeigh had against a US federal government 'run amok' against its citizens and the politics that led to his bombing of the Alfred P Murrah building in Oklahoma City on April 19 1995 - the second anniversary of Waco.
What McVeigh wrote:
'I explain herein why I bombed the Murrah federal building in Oklahoma City. I explain this not for publicity, nor seeking to win an argument of right or wrong. I explain so that the record is clear as to my thinking and motivations in bombing a government installation.
"I chose to bomb a federal building because such an action served more purposes than other options. Foremost the bombing was a retaliatory strike; a counter attack for the cumulative raids (and subsequent violence and damage) that federal agents had participated in over the preceding years (including, but not limited to, Waco). From the formation of such units as the FBI's Hostage Rescue and other assault teams amongst federal agencies during the 80s, culminating in the Waco incident, federal actions grew increasingly militaristic and violent, to the point where at Waco, our government - like the Chinese - was deploying tanks against its own citizens.
Knowledge of these multiple and ever-more aggressive raids across the country constituted an identifiable pattern of conduct within and by the federal government and amongst its various agencies.
'For all intents and purposes, federal agents had become soldiers (using military training, tactics, techniques, equipment, language, dress, organisation and mindset) and they were escalating their behaviour.
Therefore this bombing was meant as a pre-emptive (or pro-active) strike against these forces and their command and control centres within the federal building. When an aggressor force continually launches attacks from a particular base of operations, it is sound military strategy to take the fight to the enemy. Additionally, borrowing a page from US foreign policy, I decided to send a message to a government that was becoming increasingly hostile, by bombing a government building and the government employees within that building who represent that government. Bombing the Murrah federal building was morally and strategically equivalent to the US hitting a government building in Serbia, Iraq, or other nations.
Based on observations of the policies of my own government, I viewed this action as an acceptable option.
From this perspective, what occurred in Oklahoma City was no different than what Americans rain on the heads of others all the time, and subsequently, my mindset was and is one of clinical detachment. (The bombing of the Murrah building was not personal, no more than when Air Force, Army, Navy or Marine personnel bomb or launch cruise missiles against government installations and their personnel). I hope that this clarification amply addresses all questions.
I kept reading this article waiting for a mention of Margaret Sanger, but was sadly disappointed.
Timothy McVeigh, particularly his political ideology.
His letters seem consistent to me. I think in his letter to Vidal was meant to stress that it wasn't a tit for tat style revenge attack.
All these pro-violence types operate on the same propaganda playbook. It's not a left or right thing. Find unhappy people and blame someone else -- usually the state or other authority figure.
So we are just rejecting the concept of left and right for anyone that is violent? Was he left or right before he committed violence?
That's the issue at hand. Has there been any proof put out there that McVeigh was left or right? So far there hasn't been anything offered that pushes him right of libertarian center.
I forgot to consult the authoritative source on politics **checks notes** clippartWell here's our problem. You have no idea where things fall on the political spectrum.
Maybe you should just pull your head out of the sand and read what libertarians on this very forum stand for. 90% of them are as centrists as it gets.
I’ve said it before but it’s a real supply and demand issue for social villains. That’s why you have people faking hate crimes and pseudo-intellectuals comparing centrists to Tim McVeigh.
"Domestic Terrorist" works. I'm even OK with calling him a right wing extremist if you guys would bring something to the table.
Since no one is actually right wing I guess that's what we'll have to go with
Do you believe the majority of McVeigh’s viewpoints are shared by people on this board? Be honest. It appears you leftists have the opinion Republicans/libertarians/conservatives are either in lock step or openly support hate crimes and terrorism.
Both medic and PDT have told me that Timothy McVeigh was a libertarian. So maybe your beef is with them
I disagree with medic and PDT and assert that Timothy McVeigh is a right winger, but apparently such people don't exist.
Libertarian is right? Is everyone to the right of progressives and socialists right leaners now?
Two things that I didn't think were controversial:
1 McVeigh was right wing
2 libertarianism defined in a way that could describe McVeigh is right of center
Answer the question. Do you think people on this board, who have an opposing viewpoint to yours, support McVeigh and agree with what he did?
When the gunman shot at the republican congressmen, were they supporting your viewpoint?
I seriously want to understand if you think political ideology is responsible for abhorrent behavior.
Maybe you should take it up with McVeigh. He described himself as agnostic and libertarian.
Libertarianism can also describe left of center. FFS, Dan is open borders. You're really putting yourself on syskatine's hill? There's a whole lot of room for exploration of political ideologies and vague "connections" if your answer is yes.
If the answer is yes, then why aren’t there more issues? Let’s speculate that there are 150mm US citizens that espouse the political viewpoint you despise. Why don’t we see incidents like Christchurch every minute/day/week? Statistics will point out that bees are far more dangerous than a “radicalized” white guy.
if cigarettes cause lung cancer why isn't there more lung cancer?
You move the conversation far enough left and the middle is the right. And since McVeigh hates the government.... close enough!
Let’s go with that. What’s the acceptable ratio for causation? So you’re telling me smoking doesn’t lung cancer now?
Given your logic - I have to assume the fact you were breastfed too long is the reason you’re such a flaming pansy.
Don't know where you get this is controversial. Sys declared McVeigh was right wing and couldn't back it up with anything more than the main stream media told him to believe it. Everything else is entertainment.
Similar threads
