posted on June 17, 2001 11:48:41 PM newSeems to me that after 11 years of verbal protests & attempts to reason with the British government on the part of leading citizens, and increasing harassment by Britain, that the use of violence by the colonists was understandable.
Would you say that reasoning applies with respect to contemporary situations?
posted on June 18, 2001 12:16:50 AM new
Reason always applies. People like McVeigh completely ignore it, however, opting to go straight for violence.
Don't like something? Work to change it. Use your vote. Start a grassroots campaign. Become involved.
With the American Revolution the colonists tried to the very end to peacefully resolve the conflicts--even after being forced to raise an army.
The "oppression" some people claim today is nowhere near what the colonists had to put up with yet violence is the first thing that seems to come to mind these days.
posted on June 18, 2001 12:29:05 AM new"The colonists protested for 11 years--first the Sugar Act, then the Quartering Act, then the Stamp Tax, and then the Townshend Acts. After 4,000 troops were landed in Boston, relations worsened. Gradually physical acts of protest built up"
Seperate objectionable actions by the in place government led to escalating protest actions by some colonists oover a span of eleven years. During which time the governmental reactions grew increasingly intolerant, arrogant, and aggressive.
Consider that McVeigh's act does not stand alone in the recent chronology of protest in this country. Perhaps beginning with the civil rights protests in the early 1960, through the massively violent riots of the middle sixties, on to the frequently violent protests against the conduct of the Vietnam War.....you fill in the rest.
There has been a steadily increasing resentment and protest of governmental action by some citizens in this country for forty years. Deceptive information release and coverups create strong resentment when disclosed. Extraordinary objectionable action acts as catalyst for action in some. The Waco and Ruby Ridge incidents are atrocities commited by the government which should rely on and work for the trust and faith of it's citizenry.
Does it seem to you, Bunnicula that after 40 years of verbal protests & attempts to reason with the american government on the part of citizens, that after having resorted to lesser violent protest only to receive increasing harassment by the US agencies, that the use of violence by the people was understandable?
posted on June 18, 2001 06:55:56 AM new
One might want to keep in mind that many of the Redcoats were in fact Hessians, mercenaries hired for the explicit purpose of suppressing the uppity colonists.
If one wants to draw an historic parallel between today's government and the anti government groups and individuals it might be more apropos to look to the Civil War.
_____________________________________________
On a slightly different note, I have no sympathy for the people who feel so oppressed by our government and who justify and resort to violence in protest.
We enjoy the highest standard of living ever known in the history of civilization. Anyone who believes that this occurred in spite of our means of government rather than because of our means of government is wearing blinders.
Our system of government provides for peaceful change. It provides for checks and balances so that tyranny cannot rise up and dominate the populace. To argue that incidents like Waco or Ruby Ridge mean that the system has broken down and an only be corrected or changed by violence is, in my opinion, ridiculous.
_____________________________________________
On still another note, folks looking for martyrs will invariably find them. I doubt that McVeigh's execution will convert any folks to his "cause" or to his "methods".
There will always be a lunatic fringe. One hundred years ago they were known as anarchists. Today they call themselves "patriots" and "freedom fighters" while rationale folks call them "terrorists."
posted on June 18, 2001 08:36:41 AM newkrs: McVeigh's action *does* stand alone. Rather than protest what he considered the government's wrongdoing, rather than trying to change things politically, that than using reason, he chose instead to bomb a public building--and at a time of day that guaranteed the most deaths. Some "patriot."
For the rest, as I said it bears no comparison to the colonists & their revolution.
posted on June 18, 2001 08:56:01 AM newWe enjoy the highest standard of living ever known in the history of civilization. Anyone who believes that this occurred in spite of our means of government rather than because of our means of government is wearing blinders.
Separate from liberty, except the obvious indirect connection: a wealthy population is disinclined toward revolution, and thus vulnerable to the loss of liberty.
Our system of government provides for peaceful change.
This seems crucial to the analysis, and relevant in any intellectual appeal to some potential bomber. As a one-liner, it doesn't go very far, but it seems to have potential.
It provides for checks and balances so that tyranny cannot rise up and dominate the populace.
Not particulary convincing to one who has personally observed tyranny.
To argue that incidents like Waco or Ruby Ridge mean that the system has broken down and an only be corrected or changed by violence is, in my opinion, ridiculous.
posted on June 18, 2001 09:10:40 AM new
krs: McVeigh's action *does* stand alone.
"It stood in the context of Koresh's and Weaver's resistance. At the very least".
No, not to split hairs overmuch, but McVeigh's act does not stand alone. It is part of a continuum of subversive action which may or may not be escalating.
To separate that act prevents a look at the larger problem of factional discontent and does open it and he to ridicule. As you say, ridicule will not stop a future tragedy.
posted on June 18, 2001 10:53:31 AM new
On Ruby Ridge: I agree wholeheartedly that the authorities overreacted. On the other hand, if Weaver had appeared in court when he was supposed to on charges of selling illegal firearms the whole thing would have never happened...
On Koresh & Waco: in reality, there was no way it would have ended peacefully. The man *was* a wacko. This was the guy who used armed force to take control of the sect in the first place. This was the guy who used mind control techniques on his followers combined with force & humiliation. This was the guy who claimed to be the "7th angel." This was the guy who had forcible sex with 12-14 year-old girls & called it "marriage" & even maintained a harem. This was the guy who hid behind the children, using them as a shield. I can remember mothers & relatives pleading for the release of their children & getting zip.
Like McVeigh, none of them tried to change what they didn't like legally.
posted on June 18, 2001 11:10:23 AM new
Another thing, we have to take McVeigh's word that he was 'acting as a patriot'. Really, has anyone considered the possibility that he was just a sadistic creep and didn't do it because of any 'high principles' that he developed because of Ruby Ridge and Waco but only said he did? Why might he do that? Well, a discussion like this one (where people come close to the line of 'seeing where he was coming from') wouldn't be possible without his explanation. Maybe he decided to gather people into his corner by adopting an issue near to their heart but not his.
posted on June 18, 2001 11:46:51 AM new
Except that he was a soldier, a hero, unable to come to terms personally with the actions that his government had him perform. He had been involved in the wanton killing of essentially defenseless Iraqis--mechanized units were actually bulldozing them live into mass graves. From that he came to view other actions of the government as equally senseless and also without justification. That "incident" at Ruby Ridge involved a mother having her head blown apart while holding her child by aimed rifle fire from a federal agent.
posted on June 18, 2001 12:02:25 PM new
So his dissillusionment with violence leads him to violence? It's nice story, and I see that many people are buying it. I'm not saying in his twisted mind one didn't follow the other, but I think it's possible that his act of violence in Oklahoma City began and ended with the fact that he was a just a violent, sadistic man.
posted on June 18, 2001 12:20:14 PM new"dissillusionment with violence leads him to violence?"
Not at all. It isn't the violence but the arrogance. He might ask what gives this country the right to do those things to other countries, and then find that this country did like things not only to other countries but to it's own citizens as well. Why is mass murder justified when committed by factions of this government? Is it that it is not considered mass murder if a rationale can be drawn for it? Why would anyone find a danger in that, James?
posted on June 18, 2001 04:15:26 PM new
In times of war it is a given that there are going to be casualties. Yes, including civilian casualties, given that opposing armies don't fight on an isolated field a la a football game. This has happened with *every* country fighting a war, not just the U.S.
To try and compare an action taken by someone like McVeigh with the actions taken by the military during combat is ludicrous, especially if the aim is justification of the act.
posted on June 18, 2001 05:40:28 PM new
Keep in mind that I'm only trying to see it as he did, and am not justifying or advocating anything.
For McVeigh, it was a war. Througout he spoke and wrote of it that way, not as a compulsive or obsessive homicidal person would. That bombing was an attack upon a bastion of his enemy.
