Timothy McVeigh

[Reality]

For those of you who don't know who he was:

Timothy James McVeigh (April 23, 1968 – June 11, 2001) was a United States Army veteran and security guard who was convicted of bombing the Alfred P. Murrah Building in Oklahoma City on April 19, 1995, the second anniversary of the Waco Siege, as revenge or to inspire revolt against what he considered a tyrannical federal government. The bombing killed 168 people, and was the deadliest act of terrorism within the United States prior to the September 11, 2001 attacks. He was convicted of 11 federal offenses, sentenced to death, and executed on June 11, 2001.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_McVeigh)

Do you believe McVeigh was a terrorist, or freedom fighter? Do applaud he fought for what he believed in, or did he meaninglessly slaughter pretty much nearly 200 people?

Personally, I think he was an interesting man, and although I don't condone the fact he killed all those people, I do actually think he's similar to freedom fighters in the past, i.e. the early IRA and did it because of something he believed in. He wasn't a random serial killer, he'd actually been very supportive of his country and been in the U.S. Army, but I think his actions were a little extreme.

I see many people debate whether he was a good man, or bad man. I really can't see him as "just a terrorist", though. But nor a freedom fighter. So what do you think? What do you think of his views? Was he mad? Or did he have a good "cause"?

[Koman]

Didnt he kill like 10 or so kids in a nursery? If so, noone who kills kids can be called a freedom fighter. He should have done it old school and assassinated his enemies. (way more efficient aswell)

[Curthose93]

Neither. Just a murderer.

I mean, what was his goal?

[lamboman43]

I think he is a terrorist. He sure didn't have to kill all those people. He was extremely stupid for doing so. He didn't need to "avenge" people by killing more. He is a stupid killer and deserves the punishment he got.

[Reality]

Didnt he kill like 10 or so kids in a nursery? If so, noone who kills kids can be called a freedom fighter. He should have done it old school and assassinated his enemies. (way more efficient aswell)
If you read the article, he blew up a Federal building back in 1995 as a sort of revenge against the U.S. Government.

I think he is a terrorist. He sure didn't have to kill all those people. He was extremely stupid for doing so. He didn't need to "avenge" people by killing more. He is a stupid killer and deserves the punishment he got.
Not trying to justify anything he did, and he did deserve his punishment, but he wasn't just a "stupid" out of the blue killer. He became consumed by a dangerous ideology and paranoia of the U.S. Government after being in the U.S. Army and forced to shoot surrendering Iraqis in the Gulf War or something. It's quite complex.

But yeah, he's more along the lines of a terrorist.

[bobtom]

Terrorist

I don't see how killing all those people would have stopped the federal govt.

[INFERNO]

I think he is a terrorist. He sure didn't have to kill all those people. He was extremely stupid for doing so. He didn't need to "avenge" people by killing more. He is a stupid killer and deserves the punishment he got.

I think you're not taking into account the fact that he's a war veteran. After someone comes back from a war, it's been documented time and time again, that they tend to have a different behavior, reactions and personality. Some may become fearful, some are traumatized to believe they still are in the war and have to do this in order to survive. "Stupid killer"? No, he was a man who helped the US in wars, and to me, that's far from stupid, it's brave, it's patriarchal and the person deserves respect, not only from partaking in one war but in more than one war and helping the US. That is not stupid in the least. While I may not be an American, I certainly can respect someone like Mr. MvVeigh.

To me, the bombing was a way of showing his discontent and seeking revenge against the US government. From the link from the OP:

The carnage McVeigh witnessed created one of the early roots of his hatred of the US government.[citation needed] ... McVeigh later would say that the Army taught him how to switch off his emotions.[5] He had special lifesaving training and may have saved the life of a comrade who had life-threatening shrapnel wounds.[19]

I believe his war efforts changed him and due to that, he did the bombing. Despite that, I have conflicting views on him. He seems to be more of a terrorist for doing the bombing, however, it seems rather silly to refer to him as a terrorist or an evil person and in doing so, ignore the fact that he won medals in the army, helped the US army in more than one war, etc... .

[lamboman43]

I think you're not taking into account the fact that he's a war veteran. After someone comes back from a war, it's been documented time and time again, that they tend to have a different behavior, reactions and personality. Some may become fearful, some are traumatized to believe they still are in the war and have to do this in order to survive. "Stupid killer"? No, he was a man who helped the US in wars, and to me, that's far from stupid, it's brave, it's patriarchal and the person deserves respect, not only from partaking in one war but in more than one war and helping the US. That is not stupid in the least. While I may not be an American, I certainly can respect someone like Mr. MvVeigh.

To me, the bombing was a way of showing his discontent and seeking revenge against the US government. From the link from the OP:



I believe his war efforts changed him and due to that, he did the bombing. Despite that, I have conflicting views on him. He seems to be more of a terrorist for doing the bombing, however, it seems rather silly to refer to him as a terrorist or an evil person and in doing so, ignore the fact that he won medals in the army, helped the US army in more than one war, etc... .

So in a way you are saying is that it is ok for a war vetern to bomb places to hell and kill people? You are respecting someone who kills innocent people.
It is wrong for you to say it is ok for people that come back from wars, to kill people. And you cant forget that he killed Children.

[INFERNO]

So in a way you are saying is that it is ok for a war vetern to bomb places to hell and kill people? You are respecting someone who kills innocent people.
It is wrong for you to say it is ok for people that come back from wars, to kill people. And you cant forget that he killed Children.

No, I never said it was OK in any way. I said what he did in the US army is very respectable, I made the distinction between that and his bombing very clear. The bombing he did I am not saying is OK. Also, I never said anywhere it's OK for war veterans to come back and start killing. If I did, please, quote me and show me exactly where I said that.

My view is as follows: I feel it is rather horrid to call him evil or hate him for one thing he did and completely forget the years he risked his life in wars, the fact that he helped your country fight wars, yet if he does one bad thing, you completely disrespect him. That I find to be problematic.

I do and I did say before I consider him a terrorist due to the bombing. However, I also respect not the fact that he bombed to avenge the U.S. government, but rather that I respect his war efforts.

[lamboman43]

No, I never said it was OK in any way. I said what he did in the US army is very respectable, I made the distinction between that and his bombing very clear. The bombing he did I am not saying is OK. Also, I never said anywhere it's OK for war veterans to come back and start killing. If I did, please, quote me and show me exactly where I said that.

My view is as follows: I feel it is rather horrid to call him evil or hate him for one thing he did and completely forget the years he risked his life in wars, the fact that he helped your country fight wars, yet if he does one bad thing, you completely disrespect him. That I find to be problematic.

I do and I did say before I consider him a terrorist due to the bombing. However, I also respect not the fact that he bombed to avenge the U.S. government, but rather that I respect his war efforts.

But this isn't about his war efforts. I will never respect him no matter how much good he did in wars, he killed Innocent civilians in his own country, and some of them were children.
I find that every good thing he did in the wars are cancelled out by each person he killed in that building.

[INFERNO]

But this isn't about his war efforts. I will never respect him no matter how much good he did in wars, he killed Innocent civilians in his own country, and some of them were children.

You haven't answered my other questions of finding it where you claim that I said something. The reason I have a problem with your logic is your line of thinking appears to be this. Person A is a wonderful, caring, patriarchal man. Suddenly, he gets angry and eventually loses it and kills some people. So, you're going to ignore the fact that Person A was a researcher and doctor for 40 years, found cures to diseases, etc..., made your life, your world safer just because he did one thing wrong.

No, this is about Mr. McVeigh and in discussing him, it's also about his life and war efforts. Yes, he killed innocent people, that I agree on. But, look at how much he fought in wars, saved a comrad, won war/army awards, etc... . Consider the context of the bombing, not simply looking at the bombing and ignoring everything else.

[lamboman43]

You haven't answered my other questions of finding it where you claim that I said something. The reason I have a problem with your logic is your line of thinking appears to be this. Person A is a wonderful, caring, patriarchal man. Suddenly, he gets angry and eventually loses it and kills some people. So, you're going to ignore the fact that Person A was a researcher and doctor for 40 years, found cures to diseases, etc..., made your life, your world safer just because he did one thing wrong.

No, this is about Mr. McVeigh and in discussing him, it's also about his life and war efforts. Yes, he killed innocent people, that I agree on. But, look at how much he fought in wars, saved a comrad, won war/army awards, etc... . Consider the context of the bombing, not simply looking at the bombing and ignoring everything else.

But for every good thing he did (atleast for me) is cancelled out by each one of the people he killed in that bombing. Sure he saved one person in the war, but he killed over 150x more at that bombing.

[INFERNO]

But for every good thing he did (atleast for me) is cancelled out by each one of the people he killed in that bombing. Sure he saved one person in the war, but he killed over 150x more at that bombing.

And how many enemies in the war did he kill that could've killed plenty of others? I'm sure it was over 150. I'm curious, why is it that one bad thing negates all the good things he did in war? What is your rationale for that decision and conclusion?

[lamboman43]

And how many enemies in the war did he kill that could've killed plenty of others? I'm sure it was over 150. I'm curious, why is it that one bad thing negates all the good things he did in war? What is your rationale for that decision and conclusion?

Well he could have done something different than kill innocent people. I dont get how you respect a killer.

[INFERNO]

Well he could have done something different than kill innocent people. I dont get how you respect a killer.

I've said before, I respect his war efforts NOT the bombing. I've said that over and over. True, he could have done something different but now I pose a question to you, and it's hypothetical: assume he did not do the bombing, but that he still did his war efforts. He killed in the wars, so, would you respect him as killing those people? And since it's hypothetical, I don't want an answer of "well he didn't", as that's dancing away.

[lamboman43]

I've said before, I respect his war efforts NOT the bombing. I've said that over and over. True, he could have done something different but now I pose a question to you, and it's hypothetical: assume he did not do the bombing, but that he still did his war efforts. He killed in the wars, so, would you respect him as killing those people? And since it's hypothetical, I don't want an answer of "well he didn't", as that's dancing away.

Yes I would respect him for killing our dangerous enemies. I respect any person that has defended our country or our allies country, as long as they don't go on a innocent person killing spree.

[INFERNO]

Yes I would respect him for killing our dangerous enemies. I respect any person that has defended our country or our allies country, as long as they don't go on a innocent person killing spree.

Ah ok, so you respect him for I'll say thousands of enemies he killed but killed a mere 150 negates all that killing you respect? To me, it's a negativity bias: you change something from positive to negative but not likely from negative to positive. But, what if some of the enemies he killed were very young and inexperienced? What if they didn't kill anyone at all yet he had plenty of kills already and killed that person. Would that "virgin killer" be deemed innocent and why/why not?

[lamboman43]

Ah ok, so you respect him for I'll say thousands of enemies he killed but killed a mere 150 negates all that killing you respect? To me, it's a negativity bias: you change something from positive to negative but not likely from negative to positive. But, what if some of the enemies he killed were very young and inexperienced? What if they didn't kill anyone at all yet he had plenty of kills already and killed that person. Would that "virgin killer" be deemed innocent and why/why not?

If that "virgin killer" was not threatening anyone then that "virgin Killer" would be innocent. I say if he was threatening Tim's or anyone else's life then I would say go for it and stop him. You should be able to defend your self and others like that. But the people in the building he bombed did not threaten him.

[INFERNO]

If that "virgin killer" was not threatening anyone then that "virgin Killer" would be innocent. I say if he was threatening Tim's or anyone else's life then I would say go for it and stop him. You should be able to defend your self and others like that. But the people in the building he bombed did not threaten him.

The thing I find rather hard to understand is how you previously falsely claimed I respect a killer (Mr. McVeigh) yet you outright admitted to respecting his war efforts in killing others.

What if the virgin killer had a gun in his hand, was willing and able to shoot and kill but hadn't done so to anyone yet? If he wasn't aiming at Mr. McVeigh yet he got killed by Mr. McVeigh anyways, then was he still innocent?

Another issue is this, a rather large one: you're analyzing Mr. McVeigh's actions and behavior using your biased opinions and views. You said he had not been threatened by the people in the building, well, consider for a fact that after the wars, his demenor and character changed completely. Nobody in the building may have threatened him, however, the presence of the building could have.

[Koman]

Ah ok, so you respect him for I'll say thousands of enemies he killed but killed a mere 150 negates all that killing you respect? To me, it's a negativity bias: you change something from positive to negative but not likely from negative to positive. But, what if some of the enemies he killed were very young and inexperienced? What if they didn't kill anyone at all yet he had plenty of kills already and killed that person. Would that "virgin killer" be deemed innocent and why/why not?



Are you trying to tell me this bab killer, killed over 1000 people? Anyways, i dont care if he killed everyone in the gulf war, when he killed his own people, and some babies, that totally ruins his credit, nit matter how many wars he was in. I think he should be stripped of any medals he has. Was he put to death? Should be.

[INFERNO]

Are you trying to tell me this bab killer, killed over 1000 people? Anyways, i dont care if he killed everyone in the gulf war, when he killed his own people, and some babies, that totally ruins his credit, nit matter how many wars he was in. I think he should be stripped of any medals he has. Was he put to death? Should be.

Yes, he was put to death already I believe. Stripping him of any medals is completely unjustified. Why do you wish to remove something he earned prior to doing something else? It's like this: let's say you won an award for something that few people win, you're happy about it and such but later on, you're angry you didn't get two awards, so 10 years later, you run your car into the house of the guy that issues them in hopes of killing him. In doing so, you accidentally kill his 10 friends and kids. Now, you won the award 10 years ago, so is it fair for you to be stripped of that medal by the committee who decided which contestants get the award? Also, consider you've been researching something for 50 years, won previous awards in addition to this one, been recognized as one of the top 10 greatest scientists of all time but due to that one incident, you get no respect from anyone regardless of the fact that you found the cure to cancers and 10 genetic disorders. Fair or not, and why?

[lamboman43]

The thing I find rather hard to understand is how you previously falsely claimed I respect a killer (Mr. McVeigh) yet you outright admitted to respecting his war efforts in killing others.

What if the virgin killer had a gun in his hand, was willing and able to shoot and kill but hadn't done so to anyone yet? If he wasn't aiming at Mr. McVeigh yet he got killed by Mr. McVeigh anyways, then was he still innocent?

Another issue is this, a rather large one: you're analyzing Mr. McVeigh's actions and behavior using your biased opinions and views. You said he had not been threatened by the people in the building, well, consider for a fact that after the wars, his demenor and character changed completely. Nobody in the building may have threatened him, however, the presence of the building could have.

I respect his war efforts in the situation you gave me because you said to forget about him bombing the building. So would respect his war efforts if he didn't bomb the building.

Well I dont know how a building threatens anyone, but that doesn't justify him bombing the place. He could have bombed it at midnight when there were as few people as possible in it, but he didn't.

And about the Virgin killer. If this "killer" has not killed or threatened or pointed his gun at some one he (in my opinion) is innocent and not a killer. But once he points his gun at some one in a threatening manner or shoots someone he should be stopped one way or another.

[Koman]

Yes, he was put to death already I believe. Stripping him of any medals is completely unjustified. Why do you wish to remove something he earned prior to doing something else? It's like this: let's say you won an award for something that few people win, you're happy about it and such but later on, you're angry you didn't get two awards, so 10 years later, you run your car into the house of the guy that issues them in hopes of killing him. In doing so, you accidentally kill his 10 friends and kids. Now, you won the award 10 years ago, so is it fair for you to be stripped of that medal by the committee who decided which contestants get the award? Also, consider you've been researching something for 50 years, won previous awards in addition to this one, been recognized as one of the top 10 greatest scientists of all time but due to that one incident, you get no respect from anyone regardless of the fact that you found the cure to cancers and 10 genetic disorders. Fair or not, and why?

Uh, yes that is what im saying. His medals were probably all he loved in his life. Otta hit them where it hurts. It doesnt have to make sense, its a punishment. I dont care what he did prior to his bombings,. Maybe because i dont like him i should go muder all of his relatives and friends. Doesnt sound fair does it? Neither is the punishment of stripping him of his medals, but it should be done.

[INFERNO]

I respect his war efforts in the situation you gave me because you said to forget about him bombing the building. So would respect his war efforts if he didn't bomb the building.

Well I dont know how a building threatens anyone, but that doesn't justify him bombing the place. He could have bombed it at midnight when there were as few people as possible in it, but he didn't.

And about the Virgin killer. If this "killer" has not killed or threatened or pointed his gun at some one he (in my opinion) is innocent and not a killer. But once he points his gun at some one in a threatening manner or shoots someone he should be stopped one way or another.

A building doesn't threaten someone in the sense of it verbally or physically doing something, however, the presence of it and what it stands for can metaphorically threaten. True, he could have bombed it another time, as his issue was with the building and what it represents, not the people inside. Why he didn't do it when there were fewer people I'm not sure on.

Uh, yes that is what im saying. His medals were probably all he loved in his life. Otta hit them where it hurts. It doesnt have to make sense, its a punishment. I dont care what he did prior to his bombings,. Maybe because i dont like him i should go muder all of his relatives and friends. Doesnt sound fair does it? Neither is the punishment of stripping him of his medals, but it should be done.

It doesn't sound reasonable to give random, unfair and unjustified punishments. I don't follow your logic of you acknowledging the punishment being unfair yet still willing to give it. What if people followed that logic for other offenses, what if that replaced the objective sentencing in court rooms? It's just creating more chaos in order to deal with chaos, so to me, that seems to defeat the point of it. You have objective sentencing to reduce chaos without causing a lot of chaos.

[lamboman43]

A building doesn't threaten someone in the sense of it verbally or physically doing something, however, the presence of it and what it stands for can metaphorically threaten. True, he could have bombed it another time, as his issue was with the building and what it represents, not the people inside. Why he didn't do it when there were fewer people I'm not sure on.

Probably because he wasn't very sane.

[Oblivion]

There's a thing called peaceful protest.
He didn't have to kill anyone.

[Koman]

A building doesn't threaten someone in the sense of it verbally or physically doing something, however, the presence of it and what it stands for can metaphorically threaten. True, he could have bombed it another time, as his issue was with the building and what it represents, not the people inside. Why he didn't do it when there were fewer people I'm not sure on.



It doesn't sound reasonable to give random, unfair and unjustified punishments. I don't follow your logic of you acknowledging the punishment being unfair yet still willing to give it. What if people followed that logic for other offenses, what if that replaced the objective sentencing in court rooms? It's just creating more chaos in order to deal with chaos, so to me, that seems to defeat the point of it. You have objective sentencing to reduce chaos without causing a lot of chaos.

Doesnt sound like timmy followed the logic, so the logic shouldn't follow him. He lost his fairness opportunities.

[INFERNO]

Probably because he wasn't very sane.

He was in more than one war, had to witness the carnage and terror. PTSD and other disorders can result, many people come back from war and are changed.

There's a thing called peaceful protest.
He didn't have to kill anyone.

True, he didn't have to kill anyone.

Doesnt sound like timmy followed the logic, so the logic shouldn't follow him. He lost his fairness opportunities.

Ah, so if you do one thing that is unfair, then you are not only punished unfairly but you lose your fairness opportunities? Is this loss forever or does it apply only to the punishment for that one thing?

Let me ask you this: have you ever done anything unfair to anyone? If you have, then do you feel it was justified for you to be punished unfairly? If you haven't done anything unfair, then pretend you have.

[Koman]

He was in more than one war, had to witness the carnage and terror. PTSD and other disorders can result, many people come back from war and are changed.



True, he didn't have to kill anyone.



Ah, so if you do one thing that is unfair, then you are not only punished unfairly but you lose your fairness opportunities? Is this loss forever or does it apply only to the punishment for that one thing?

Let me ask you this: have you ever done anything unfair to anyone? If you have, then do you feel it was justified for you to be punished unfairly? If you haven't done anything unfair, then pretend you have.

I broke the rules, so they can aswell. If he has ptsd to that level he should be put in an insane asylum.

[INFERNO]

I broke the rules, so they can aswell. If he has ptsd to that level he should be put in an insane asylum.

Then if they break the rules in punishing you, does this continue for punishment even when you do not break the rules or only for that one event?

[Koman]

Then if they break the rules in punishing you, does this continue for punishment even when you do not break the rules or only for that one event?

Yup i goes until zealu breaks the rules when the DC-8's really didnt fly out of th volcano with the spirit bodies.

[INFERNO]

Yup i goes until zealu breaks the rules when the DC-8's really didnt fly out of th volcano with the spirit bodies.

I'm partially getting the metaphor. I assume the DC-8's are the explosives used and the volcano and spirit bodies are the building and people blown up.

I'm not getting the zealu breaking the rules bit.

[Koman]

I'm partially getting the metaphor. I assume the DC-8's are the explosives used and the volcano and spirit bodies are the building and people blown up.

I'm not getting the zealu breaking the rules bit.


No zealu was the main guy in the retarded scientology scam, and they flew on DC-8's and when people died their spirits got put stuck in a volcano and he floated up. It was retarded. I used it as a brodge from your retardedly confusing post. Wow you way over think things. Lmao.

[INFERNO]

No zealu was the main guy in the retarded scientology scam, and they flew on DC-8's and when people died their spirits got put stuck in a volcano and he floated up. It was retarded. I used it as a brodge from your retardedly confusing post. Wow you way over think things. Lmao.

If you found a post confusing, you can ask for clarification. Also, as I've said before, debate the debate, not the debater. Personal comments and attacks are unnecessary and unacceptable.

[lamboman43]

If you found a post confusing, you can ask for clarification. Also, as I've said before, debate the debate, not the debater. Personal comments and attacks are unnecessary and unacceptable.

And against the rule, believe me.

[Camazotz]

There's a thing called peaceful protest.
He didn't have to kill anyone.

Completely agreed. I cannot respect a murderer, especially one that kills children. There's no reason to murder. He can keep his medals, not that they'll mean anything to him (since he's dead).

[INFERNO]

Completely agreed. I cannot respect a murderer, especially one that kills children. There's no reason to murder. He can keep his medals, not that they'll mean anything to him (since he's dead).

Thank you for agreeing. True, he is dead already, however, if he were still to be alive (for whatever reason), then I'd still say let him have the medals.