This has nothing to do with military targets, rather targets in the event of civil unrest.
Repaid in kind, to me, means repaid in kind. Not repaid by slaughtering 168 innocent people. That’s not exactly “in kind”, it’s straightforward cowardly terrorism.
Why not? To the terrorists who conducted those acts, they were repaying blood spilled by America with the blood of innocents and the military. Why don’t they get to hide behind “repaid in kind”?
Calling the slaughter of innocents through terrorism “an accounting” is reprehensible.
You need lessons in reading comprehension.
Only because of the way you phrased the question. The people killed had little to nothing to do with what the terrorists’ complaints were.
Justice is wholly subjective. I imagine it was a perfectly fair accounting from the perspective of the 9/11 hijackers.
In the meantime, can a mod delete my double post? My internet connection was just about tits up for a minute, there. Thanks.
I see. When you said repaid in kind, you didn’t actually mean repaid in kind. Gotcha.
Sure they did. They were Americans. They were in the World Trade Center or on the USS Cole. They certainly had as much to do with the terrorist’s complaints as the innnocent people in Oklahoma City. Again, why aren’t they allowed to say it was payment in kind?
And, once again, their “perspective”, like that of McVeigh, and like yours, is wrong and reprehensible.
Yes of course, civil unrest. Care to mention the last time federal law enforcement offices were the targets of a bombing campaign during civil unrest? Or some proof that the federal government is moving said offices into urban concealment with the intent of increasing civilian casualties when they’re bombed during civil unrest?
Zer ist a great deal uv ‘belie’-ing in your posts, hmmm? Vun vunders if zer is perhaps a subconscious perhaps, dare ve zay, ‘Freudian’ mechanism occurrink ven you write zees posts? Hmm?
Perhaps you should schedule an appointment mit uns.
Oh boy. Hamlet, I’m not going to argue semantics with you any longer. If another poster legitimately cannot grasp the point I was making, I’ll revisit the difference between actions against the US et al and individual citizens again.
Sorry, I can’t think of one. Can you think of the last time a federal building was the target of any sort of military campaign?
I have no proof of moving federal offices for any reason whatsoever. This is the second time I will state that I was making an assumption, and before that I used the verb “presume” - never did I say I had proof or anything other than a wild fleet of fancy that indicated federal law enforcement offices might have been moved b/c the Oklahoma City bombing.
The 19 infants and toddlers killed in the Day Care center of that building were unfortunate, but I’ll bet kids in daycares will think twice before letting their parents work for a government that would do something like the stuff that pissed McVeigh off.
The worst thing about McVeigh was that it was impossible for him to be tortured and killed hundreds of times for each life he destroyed or ruined. His actions are no more indicative that people of America are fed up with government policies than the murder of Matthew Shepard is indicative that the people of Wyoming are homophobic and violent. Both crimes are indicative that there are some fucked up, pathetic, selfish and violent people in the world.
It’s not a matter of semantics, it’s a matter of you steadfastly refusing to say what you mean. Just like the other terrorists, McVeigh slaughtered innocent people. Just like the other terrorists, McVeigh did so (in your mind) as a strike against the US government. The only difference is that with McVeigh, you’re more than willing to try and pretend it was “payment in kind” and an “accounting”.
I did not say anything specific about the ATF. That field office is in an industrial park out in Benicia, CA 94510, your cite is out of date. And, that office may be out of the way, but it’s in a cheap rent location (as I said) , and is NOT hidden in a high rent office building with many civilians, as you claimed. It’s pretty much out there all by itself. If it was targeted, few civilians would even know until the news covered it.
However, your last post has made it clear that you were just talking out of your ass. Or, as we call it around here “trolling”.
You also used the adjective “cowardly” when describing placing them in “urban concealment.” If you don’t consider them to be legitimate targets for bombing, why the use of the adjective “cowardly” in describing where they are located “in urban concealment?” If your local post office is located next to housing, is the placement of it cowardly and in urban concealment?
Good god. Terrorist actions are a form of holding governments accountable for perceived or legitimate injustices. There is no difference if the terrorist is McVeigh, a Muslim extremist or an environmental extremist. The individuals killed are often not being held accountable for anything, except being in the wrong place at the wrong time. As Blake pointed out, this is called collateral damage and collateral damage is often considered an acceptable consequence by terrorists (not to mention governments) planning and executing an attack.
Unless you think terrorists should be held to higher standards than our own government, it’s a long shot to say that the death of innocents invalidates the terrorists’ goals. This is not to say that there isn’t usually a disparity between what a terrorist might consider acceptable collateral damage and what a government might consider acceptable.
I agree that any collateral damage whatsoever should be considered unacceptable, but nobody who intends on winning a conflict plays by that rule because it drastically tips the scales in favor of the more ruthless party.
No, you didn’t. You said (presumably federal) LEOs in San Francisco, San Jose, Oakland, etc. are in real federal buildings. ATF agents are federal LEOs.
It was not trolling, it was an aside based on an assumption backed by personal experience (having been to the ATF office in Spokane, which is still at the address in my cite in the Rock Pointe Corporate Center) related to carnivorousplant’s surprise that the FBI office in Little Rock, AR is in a “ritzy office area.”
Because a disgruntled citizen who is outraged by the actions of a federal agency might well retaliate (and let’s face it: more citizens are likely to feel outraged by law enforcement than the post office). Therefore, if I were correct about my assumption that federal agencies were moved in response to the Oklahoma City bombing - an conclusion I will readily admit is not the most logical of possible conclusions and may be dead wrong - it could still be viewed as cowardice.
You mean “common sense”?
In my mind, common sense would entail not doing things that would make others want to blow you up, but whatever.
Some people will want to blow up federal buildings regardless of what the federal government does.
And again you used words like “accountable” and “repaid in kind” to describe McVeigh’s actions, which, as I’ve said over and over, contain a value judgment that the heinousness of those actions is somehow lessened because the US deserved it.
And again, when you make excuses and rationalizations for the terrorists, whether they be Muslim or McVeigh, you lessen their responsibility. It’s that kind of rhetoric, that kind of justification for terrorism, that disgusts me about you.
Look buddy, the US commits acts that very closely parallel those of terrorists. Pointing out the parallelism of those actions does nothing to lessen the responsibility of either the government or the terrorists, nor does it reduce the heinous nature of either party’s actions.
You seem to be claiming that what is good for the goose is not good for the gander, which is just plain stupid.
And Vicki Weaver was apparently hit by a through-and-through bullet that hit Harris first, and then went through the door she was standing behind and hit her. LE snipers aren’t supposed to shoot when they don’t know who or what else may be in the line of fire.
My take is that the Weaver shootings were the result of a poorly co-ordinated and incompetently managed operation rather than the deliberate murder/execution operation it is sometimes portrayed as.
First, I’m not your buddy. Second, you’re doing the very thing you accuse me of doing, saying that what is good for the goose (your belief that US engages in acts of terrorism) is good for the gander (McVeigh).
I’m done.
Hamlet, should you revisit this thread -
My “belief” that the US engages in acts of terrorism? Please; it’s a fucking fact.
If you still can’t grasp the connection, the US bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki because it discovered conventional warfare against the highly motivated Japanese military wasn’t very effective. So the United States targeted civilians in order to break Japan’s will and it succeeded. No terrorist organization that I know of could face the US in conventional warfare, so they resort to the same exact tactics the US employed against Japan in WWII.
Finally, I accused you of claiming that what is good for the goose (the US) is not good for the gander (terrorists).