Shouldn't terrorism be fought regardless of its origin.
There were no color charts, anti-terrorism budgets or round ups of militia members.
2006-10-11 09:15:14 · 15 answers · asked by alcolera 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
there's a simple answer to that ... bush wasn't president then... we had a more intelligent president who didn't enter into a useless stupid war.
2006-10-14 10:42:59 · answer #1 · answered by Jennifer W 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The reason it did not start in April of 1995 is that "war" by its common usage, is directed at "them", an identifiable enemy. McVeigh was a white American, and there was no way to portray him otherwise. Also, McVeigh subscribed to variations of (almost mainstream) conservatism: that government was evil. So, his political ilk may have had its militant aspect (which the conservatives tried desperately to distance themselves from), but it was still misanthropic and zenophobic and destructive.
Besides this, there is the simple fact that a government building in remote Oklahoma and the World Trade Center in New York City are quite unequal. But the "finding a 'them'" reason is the essential.
2006-10-11 09:22:37 · answer #2 · answered by voltaire 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Islamic Apologists/ Moral equivalists Lo-o-ove to point out Timothy McVeigh and Eric Rudoplh, etc. as examples of Christian terrorists, but here's a surprise for you ...
There are 3 reasons why McVeigh and Rudolph are not equivalent to Bin Laden and Zaqawi..
1. They did not even attempt to justify their actions by reference to Christian Sculpture or tradition.
2. They Were Not acting on mainstream Christian Teachings.
3. There are not large Christian groups around the world dedicated to implementing the same teachings.
The difference between Osama Bin laden and Eric Rudoplh is the difference between aberrant acts and aberrant teachings. Any human being with a belief system can do horrible things. But abominable acts are more likely to come in greater numbers and frequency when they are encourages and perpetrated by religious texts and those that teach from them.
2006-10-11 10:10:58 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
individuals were witnessing for 20 years or extra, Muslims committing acts of terror around the area. those acts for those 2 many years have been aimed in direction of western international places, and maximum exceedingly Israel and the US. maybe you're too youthful to remember the 1972 Olympics in Munich. And the plane and deliver hijackings. And the hostages kidnaped by using the regime in Iran under the Ayatollah Khomeini. there have been many different incidents. by way of fact certainly one of those violence seen in Oklahoma became so generic of jihad and Islamic extremism, it is little ask your self that individuals jumped to conclusions. thankfully, our regulation enforcement companies had a rational suggestions-set to this, that's why they caught McVeigh in purely some days. it is in simple terms too undesirable that any harmless human beings have been harrassed or attacked. Hate seldom has any advantages, in spite of if it is an unique act or retaliation. Muslim terrorists ought to evaluate the result they are having on hundreds of thousands of innocents of their faith.
2016-11-27 22:14:57 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Bill Clinton believed it should be handled as a law enforcement issue. It appeared at the time that the bombing was solely a domestic crime issue. The seriousness and depth of the issue was not yet apparent to the President or the American people.
I do not believe that Clinton was ready to start rounding up US citizens. There is a huge difference between conducting war on foreign soil and imprisoning citizens. I believe the Harvard educated lawyer figured that out..
Are you insinuating that the current President is rounding up citizens on domestic soil with no evidence? I would like to see proof of that.
2006-10-11 09:23:50 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
He was white and not a threat Christianity in America.
Truth is since 9/11 we have had more home-grown terrorism then we have had from overseas.
No Muslims involved the the 3 school shootings last month, No Muslims bombing abortion clinics or stock-piling guns.
Just crazy Americans
2006-10-11 09:20:29 · answer #6 · answered by grl 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The people all gung-ho for the War on Terror like the idea of a new crusade on Islam. They think too similarly to McVeigh, while disapproving of his methods, to ever consider him a terrorist, but he was. And the militia movement consisted of a lot of social rejects who pose a menace to decent society.
2006-10-11 09:20:15 · answer #7 · answered by kreevich 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Here's a news flash - Timothy McVeigh was an American Citizen... it wasn't that he was white - psycho people - it's because it was an in house issue.... considered domestic terrorism and was rightfully executed for his crimes. - you guys can pull some stuff out of a hat... let me tell you...
2006-10-11 09:33:16 · answer #8 · answered by katjha2005 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
We are constrained to call US citizens who engage in terrorism criminals. Che CIA and Military are constrained not to move against citizens, be they terrorists or not. It can be argued that the FBI and ATF were chartered to deal with citizen terrorists, but they art still constrained not tointerfere locally without invitation.
2006-10-11 09:43:15 · answer #9 · answered by Helmut 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, it should...but McVeigh was mad about the govt's handling of Waco and Ruby ridge....it was pretty cut and dry in the regard.
2006-10-11 09:21:55 · answer #10 · answered by lethallolita 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Against whom would such a war have been waged? Fellow Americans?
2006-10-11 09:30:58 · answer #11 · answered by ? 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋