I’ve been here almost ten years, I suppose this had to happen eventually.
In this thread, Mr. Krebbs links to a picture of the destroyed Murrah Federal Building under the description that people were “being held accountable” for their actions. I called him on it, and he stood by it:
A bit of background may be in order. At the time, one of my best friends worked for FDA as an inspector. It was her job to go to fish processing plants and make sure that they were doing everything right so that people didn’t eat fish, get sick, and die. Those are the kind of people who work in a federal building. My friend wasn’t in Oklahoma City, but she was scared by it.
“He killed a lot of innocents to make his point but he did make his point”? McVeigh showed himself to be a mass murdered. I can’t defend every action taken by my government, but if there was any point to be made about Waco and Ruby Ridge, it was lost the moment one innocent person suffered under McVeigh’s monstrous action.
To suggest that people like my friend could be killed as a means of being “held accountable” is beneath contempt. Mr. Krebbs, I pit you.
Meh, I don’t agree, but Krebs is making a reasonable argument. Federal government kills innocents, federal government employees are killed in retaliation.
If it’s contemptible then so is any non-defensive killing. The US government is right now killing people and justifying it by saying that it is just holding someone accountable for a terrorist attack.
This isn’t pitworthy just because you have friends who are included under the normally anonymous “them” of “collateral damage”.
I really don’t’ get this line of thinking. It is so far off base from reality, hell from basic humanity, that I struggle to even picture someone typing it. In what kind of fucked up world can you make excuses for the murder of innocents like this? Even accepting the position that “the federal government kills innocents”, how can you possibly think that this kind of “retaliation” is in any way shape or form, justifiable?
I’ve read some seriously fucked up crap on this board, but this one surprised me. Congratulations on that, at least.
I mistook your “I don’t agree” to be to the OP and not to Krebs. My apologies. Although I find nothing even resembling “reasonable” about the idea that governmental misconduct somehow justifies the murder of governmental employees. And I find nothing reasonable about the idea that the bombing was no more “contemptible” then so any non-defensive killing either.
If it’s any consolation, I feel a bit like a “butt”.
It also means “being in accordance with reason”, “not extreme or excessive”, and “possessing of sound judgment”. While believing the mass murder of innocents was some how holding the government “accountable” and somehow made a rational point can be “reached by reason” as almost any rationalization for evil can, it is certainly not a sound judgment and is extreme and excessive.
While I know Blake isn’t making this argument, to equate the Branch Dividians in Waco to Oklahoma City is hardly reasonable, particularly in describing Waco as “the federal government kills innocents.” To further equate this with wartime operations and airstrikes is even more ludicruous, particularly since the Taliban intentionally operate in civilian areas and intentionally melt back into them when possible. Federal employees in an office building do not intentionally place themselves in and amongst other civilians for use as cover.
And what point exactly were the FBI (apparently as an entire federal agency) trying to make at either Waco or Ruby Ridge? Your tin foil hat needs adjusting.
Trying to enforce the law is just unAmerican?
Look, I had a friend, who was a bank loan office. She worked in the Alfred Murrah Federal building. That is until Tim McViegh and Terry Nichols blew her to smithereens.
What was their point in murdering her?
The people at Ruby Ridge and the people at Waco were wrong. The situations ended badly, mostly due to their craziness, not the FBI or the ATF.
McVeigh’s actions were despicable, let’s start there. Was he doing it for a reason other than he liked to murder people? Yes. Same with Al Queda. What kind of a person is interested in the motivations of terrorists and when is it appropriate to discuss them in detail? Here on the SDMB? Yes, we are interested in the reasons for everything. Public discussion of what goes on is essential to the well being of the Republic. Also, knowing everything about these murderers is essential in capturing them after the fact and sometimes preventing them.
I was appalled but not surprised by the excoriation of Bill Mahar for saying the 9/11 hijackers were “couragous” or some such. Some of them were willing to die (the pilots) and I can see his point. I was revolted that he was temporarily drummed off the air for speaking what he saw as the truth and trying to understand why they were doing it. Part of the problem that Bush had in prosecuting his war on the Axis of Evil was that he personally was uninterested in what motivated his opponents. It made him easily manipulated by his advisors. It made him a poor leader.
That is not a reasonable argument. Walking into an ATF or FBI office and opening fire might be construed as a reasonable response to the siege of the Weavers’ cabin (there is no such place, in point of fact, as Ruby Ridge), or to the Waco siege.
Blowing up a Federal building staffed almost entirely by bureaucrats and people unrelated to the ATF and FBI is not a reasonable response.
However, McVeigh didn’t blow up the building just because of Ruby Ridge and the Waco siege. He was a long-time malcontent who was writing about an impending second civil war in 1992 because he was angry about what he viewed as excessive taxation.
The Ruby Ridge “situation” ended badly because of the incompetence of the Federal personnel handling it. Randy Weaver admittedly made the first mistake- he holed up in his cabin to avoid a largely inconsequential weapons charge.
However, the US Marshalls tasked with arresting him shot his dog and seven-year-old son (in the back). They later shot his unarmed wife in the head while she stood in the doorway of the cabin.
Under those circumstances, who the hell would give themselves up?
I thought we were pitting Maynard G. Krebs, Dobie Gillis’ pal. Imagine my surprise that we’re actually having to pit people defending domestic terrorists.
I’m surprised that they have internet access in the compound.
