So how, again, does Homer fit into this whole scheme of things?
Actually, Tank, I don’t think the Murrah Building would have been a legitimate target even in a war. The mere fact that it is a government building does not mean that it has any value as a military target that is different from any private structure. What was in there that was of such military value that it outweighed the hundreds of non-combatants in there at the time of the attack? The Social Security office?
Out of curiousity, who exactly qualifies as “militia types”? What do they want? How much disaffection do I have to show before “the rest of (you)” consider me “fucking nuts”?
As I understand it, McVeigh had concerns about the lack of accountability within federal organizations such as the FBI, specifically related to the actions at Waco. I happen to have similar concerns. Does this similarity make me fucking nuts?
I personally believe that Lon Horiuchi is guilty of murder, much as many others believed (pre-trial) that OJ was. All of the evidence available to me points to that conclusion. Again, I ask, does this make me fucking nuts?
Do I have to actually spell out my feelings about McVeigh’s chosen method of “expression”, or do you somehow equate my belief that there is a lack of accountability in Washington with blowing up buildings?
So you were referring specifically to the Militia of Montana? So as long as I’m not a member of that group, I’m OK. Seriously though, do you automatically group dissatisfied people with this bunch? Considering the fact that they screwed up the definition of “usurped” on their own information page, I fail to see how you can take them seriously at all.
I’ll presume the answers to the other three questions were all “No”.
As an aside, this gentleman is obviously the soul of wit:
Well, minty , the CIA World Factbook says that the government of the US is a federal republic with a strong democratic tradition…I think we’ll have to declare that point a draw! 
To be honest, if open revolution ever came, “terrorist” attacks against civilians would be counterproductive. In going against a vastly superior force such as the Armed Forces of the United States (even with the possibility of some measure of defection), popular support would be a critical element of what was to be achieved. Besides, it would be somewhat hypocritical if a Constitutional army was to repress private citizens when that would be the very thing that was being rebelled against!!
As for the target value of the Murrah building, I would agree that it wasn’t a primary military target. However, as an IRS building it may well be a secondary target, as a disruption of supply (ie, revenue). (However, I do have to disagree with Tank that civilian federal employees would be legitimate targets.)
Minty: in the context of McVeigh and self-styled militias, then I am in agreement with you.
In a “larger war” context(hypothetically, say, with Canada), the offices of the FBI, ATF, Secret Service may also be in such regional federal buildings. As such, their destruction would cause civil disruption.
Also: IRS offices, Social Security, and the personnel familiar with and in charge of implementing federal policy at the regional level.
Think of the information, records and databases that would be destroyed as well.
Again: this is not to convey approval or admiration of McVeigh and his cohorts. His attack was not a declared act of war against a sovereign power, but rather the attack of a terrorist upon an unsuspecting, innocent civilian population.
As a former soldier, the idea of deliberately attacking unarmed civilians, even ones of relative signifigance, is repulsive to me.
IANAL, but IIRC, for it to be even close to being a legitimate target of war, McVeigh would have had to declare himself/his organization to be in open rebellion against the USA, with maybe even a signed declaration of war, before the actual commencements of hostilities.
Even then, it would have been a relatively poor choice of targets; one not designed to engender goodwill and sympathy within the general population.
RugbyMan may indeed be correct, as it’s been a while since I’ve had to review the Laws of Land Warfare. But if strategic bombers can turn entire populated cities to cinder or rubble…
Basically, I guess I’m asking: what makes strategic bombing of civilian targets (factories and such) legitimate, but the guerilla destruction of key civic centers illegitimate?
You seem to be an honorable person and I would never accuse
you of such brutality!
Even with a signed declaration of war, there are still laws of civilized warfare to be followed. I know that probably sounds a bit naive (most countries don’t seem to pay much attention to these laws), but why shoot for the lowest common denominator?
Exactly…popular support would be critical in such a rebellion. The only operations to carry out against civilians would be information campaigns (it’s not propaganda when your side does it ).
I know that’s how the other side may do it, but if there’s going to be a constitutionally-based rebellion then it would be remiss not to follow the principles that it contains!! Otherwise, what would be the point in fighting, when it would simply be replacing one tyrant with another???
RugbyMan: unless I’m having a brain cramp, you missed the gist of my last question. I’ll try again to illustrate my point by two differnet examples
Scenario A: Vietnam
In Vietnam, a VC Guerrilla in civilian clothing sneaks up to an American command post and tosses a satchel charge inside, blowing it up and killing several soldiers.
During a battle, an NVA regular force overruns an American base, and an NVA soldier tosses a satchel charge into an American command post, blowing it up and killing several soldiers.
Scenario B: Conventional WW III (as it never happened)
The U.S.S. Dallas launches 12 Tomahawk Missiles at Moscow, and blows up the Kremlin, killing hundreds of Soviet civilian and military government personnel.
CIA-backed anti-communist Russian guerrillas drive a truck bomb up to the front of the Kremlin (disguised as a delivery truck), and detonate it, killing hundreds of civilian and military government personnel.
Granted, Vietnam was never a “declared war” per se; I doubt that anyone who was there was in any doubt whatsoever as to the realities of the situation (at least not anyone who was ever in combat). But in both scenarios, a state of open hostility exists between two parties.
So why is the conventional attack acceptable, but the guerrilla attack not?
Maybe I’m taking the “history written by the winner” attitude about this a step too far; that was the gist of my comment about it only being a true “declared war” if the people in “open rebellion” are successful.
If they lose, they’re rebel terrorists. Again: I’m not condoning or justifying McVeigh’s actions here. He was a terrorist.
And I’m not advocating the violent overthrow, or even the attempt, of the federal government.
Not yet at least. 
In the end, do you agree with what he did anyways? Blowing up a building, killing innocents does not get your views, however legitimate, put into a good light. No one’s going to go “Now there was a man with a good head on his shoulders.”
Also, I’ve never agreed with the death penalty except for once. And I’m happy, dammit.