"Timothy McVeigh's only known affiliations were voter registration with the Republican Party when he lived in New York and a membership in the National Rifle Association while in the military."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_McVeigh
2007-06-20 08:27:40 · 17 answers · asked by Chi Guy 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Tim McVeigh is worse. He attacked his OWN country. bin Laden never attacked Saudi Arabia.
The real question is, where did all those domestic "militias" go after Bush got into office? Where are the Wacos and the Ruby Ridges? Did they make a deal witht he current Administration, sort of like the way Bush is now re-arming the Sunni Death Squads in Iraq?
2007-06-20 08:34:18 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 4⤋
I find it intriguing that so many Bush supporting/conservative types actually stated Osama Bin Laden being worse, knowing fair well, that the current administrations has done far less to bring him to justice as the administration that was "weak(as they claim) on terrorists" did McVeigh and the perps of the World Trade Center bombing.
2007-06-20 08:42:43 · answer #2 · answered by avail_skillz 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Well, both are them are evil. However, I would have to say Osama Bin Laden is worse because he killed far more people than McVeigh did. Also, McVeigh is long gone and bin Laden is still alive somewhere trying to commit more horrendous acts towards the United States.
2007-06-20 08:32:33 · answer #3 · answered by John 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Well I'm gonna go with Bin Laden, he has orchestrated numerous acts of terrorism. Although both are very evil, McVeigh isn't on the same level as Bin Laden.
2007-06-20 08:32:29 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 6⤊ 0⤋
They're both despicable people. Timothy is caught and can't do more damage than what he's already done. Bin Laden, if still alive, still represents danger and if nothing else, from his leadership and guidance alone. Something that McVeigh didn't have.
I say Osama, based on what I've written and trying to use logic.
2007-06-20 08:32:39 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
Osama, by far.
McVeigh did one horrendous act and "took it like a man" when he died for it. Not an admirable person but he won't be in the deepest parts of hell.
Osama, on the other hand, is a cowardly perpetrator of horrible deeds who deserves the bottom burner of Hades, at the furthest point from his 69 virgins. To inflict unjust deaths on so many and to teach others to do it also is unforgivable, even by Allah.
2007-06-20 08:44:46 · answer #6 · answered by OkieDanCer 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I condone neither guy or woman for his or her strikes yet I do understand what stimulated their convictions, returned, neither of which I consider. the two are brethren in a devil alongside with the minions that help a equipment that creates HATE. Absolute ability and administration demands this form of hatred to justify that is life. i'm the perimeter and issues are going to get a shite lot worse than those 2 little 'crackheads'!
2016-10-18 04:11:27 · answer #7 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
So what is your point? That the Republican party is home to disenfranchaised Americans that later blow up federal buildings?
And Bin Laden would be worse. As tragic as the Oklahoma City bombing was, it was one attack and then the threat was over. Bin Laden has numerous attacks already, and possibly more in the future.
2007-06-20 08:34:01 · answer #8 · answered by Pythagoras 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Bin Laden. Because he is still free and he has many followers. Nobody (not even Republicans) follow/support McVeigh. But then again you already knew that didn't you?
2007-06-20 08:33:46 · answer #9 · answered by TRUE PATRIOT 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Bin Laden. McVeigh did the job himself he did not recruit others to commit suicide.
2007-06-20 08:33:37 · answer #10 · answered by ? 6 · 4⤊ 2⤋