NationStates Jolt Archive

Tim McVeigh is often given as an example of Christian terrorists. He's not a Christian terrorist though. He was an anti-government terrorist. Also there is evidence indicating that he got his terrorist training from Muslim terrorists.

1) Tim's bombs didn't work until after a trip to the Southern Phillipines.

2) Tim was in the same region of the Phillipines at the same time as Ramsi Yusef.

3) Muslim terrorists and white supremacist anti-government terrorists like Mc Veigh share similar goals. Killing Jews and bringing down the American government.

Now I hate Christian and Muslim extremists, but Timmy wasn't a Christian fundie terrorist like Eric Rudolph, he was a white supremacist terrorist. White supremacists often find common cause with Muslim terrorists.

You forget the dearth of reliable comments as to what religion he was, if he even had one, which'd be all that mattered to the people making the claim. Many of them will just presume someone's a Christian because they're American, for example, unless it's stated otherwise.

Ok, so, then, McVeigh is an American terrorist and Bush is a Christian one? :p

Ok, so, then, McVeigh is an American terrorist and Bush is a Christian one? :p
Anti-American terrorist. He wanted to bring down the American government.

Anti-American terrorist. He wanted to bring down the American government.
Don't you mean Anti-Government?

Don't you mean Anti-Government?
Well he was also a Turner Diaries loving white supremacist. That's unamerican in my opinion. Trying to turn the USA into Nazi Germany probably isn't something the founding fathers would have liked.

Well he was also a Turner Diaries loving white supremacist. That's unamerican in my opinion. Trying to turn the USA into Nazi Germany probably isn't something the founding fathers would have liked.

I am sure that in his view you are unamerican. It seems reasonable to describe McVeigh as anti-government, but not anti-american. It all depends on what your vision of the USA is. His was warped and evil, but still a vision of the USA nevertheless. It is not that he wanted to destroy America, he just wanted to change it dramatically.

I agree that his motivation was not religious, but that does not stop him from being a Christian terrorist as both adjectives apply to him. A better example of Christian terrorism though are the paramilitary groups from Northern Ireland.

Tim McVeigh is often given as an example of Christian terrorists. He's not a Christian terrorist though. He was an anti-government terrorist. Also there is evidence indicating that he got his terrorist training from Muslim terrorists.

1) Tim's bombs didn't work until after a trip to the Southern Phillipines.

2) Tim was in the same region of the Phillipines at the same time as Ramsi Yusef.

3) Muslim terrorists and white supremacist anti-government terrorists like Mc Veigh share similar goals. Killing Jews and bringing down the American government.

Now I hate Christian and Muslim extremists, but Timmy wasn't a Christian fundie terrorist like Eric Rudolph, he was a white supremacist terrorist. White supremacists often find common cause with Muslim terrorists.


seriously who cares

seriously who cares
It's just lately been getting on my nerves.

I am sure that in his view you are unamerican. It seems reasonable to describe McVeigh as anti-government, but not anti-american. It all depends on what your vision of the USA is. His was warped and evil, but still a vision of the USA nevertheless. It is not that he wanted to destroy America, he just wanted to change it dramatically.

I agree that his motivation was not religious, but that does not stop him from being a Christian terrorist as both adjectives apply to him. A better example of Christian terrorism though are the paramilitary groups from Northern Ireland.
So would calling members of the Red Brigades "Atheist terrorists" be correct then? Shouldn't the type of terrorist be determined by the ideology that drives him to commit terrorism? If so Timmy was a white supremacist terrorist and Eric Rudolph was a Christian terrorist.

Well, hey, I'm sick of people calling Osama bin Laden a Muslim terrorist when he's no more Muslim than George Bush is.

However, I've learned that being sick of something doesn't really matter as to whether or not it changes things.

Well, hey, I'm sick of people calling Osama bin Laden a Muslim terrorist when he's no more Muslim than George Bush is.

However, I've learned that being sick of something doesn't really matter as to whether or not it changes things.
But Osama is motivated by his view of Islam, who's history goes back at least as far as Ibn Taymiyya, who lived hundreds of years ago.

But Osama is motivated by his view of Islam, who's history goes back at least as far as Ibn Taymiyya, who lived hundreds of years ago.

So you're knowingly associating him with the rest of the muslim world, which would indeed make it seem like Islam is a violent religion?

Either he's got no religion (he's got Islam screwed up and is therefore not a muslim) or he's a muslim, and fits into the definition of what a muslim is.

Make the choice.

So would calling members of the Red Brigades "Atheist terrorists" be correct then? Shouldn't the type of terrorist be determined by the ideology that drives him to commit terrorism? If so Timmy was a white supremacist terrorist and Eric Rudolph was a Christian terrorist.

Yes it would, as the term describes them.

Idealy we should only use the relevant adjectives in describing anything, but we don't do that in other aspects of life, so why single out this one. You will see lots of threads started by Eutrusca about a veteran who did this, or that, when in most of the cases, the description 'veteran' is irrelevant to the story. One of the points concerning terrorism at the moment is that there is a perception that islam produces terrorists bu christianity does not. There is also a perception that all muslim terrorists are religiously motivated, when this is not true either. Why then do you criticise the description of McVeigh as Christian, but not of any insurgent action in Iraq as muslim, when in both cases the religion has little, if anything at all to do with the action?

I would agree that we should describe the Red Brigade as Anarchist terrorists, Timothy MCVeigh as a white supremacy terrorist, only if we also describe the insurgents as anti occupation terrorists, rather than muslim.

So you're knowingly associating him with the rest of the muslim world, which would indeed make it seem like Islam is a violent religion?

Either he's got no religion (he's got Islam screwed up and is therefore not a muslim) or he's a muslim, and fits into the definition of what a muslim is.

Make the choice.
He's one type of Muslim. There is no one orthodox Islam, just as there is no one orthodox Christianity. Eric Rudolph was a Christian, but not the same type of Chrisitian as the baptist preacher who lives in my neighborhood. Osama is a Muslim, but probably not the same type of Muslim that runs my favorite fried chicken place.

But Osama is motivated by his view of Islam, who's history goes back at least as far as Ibn Taymiyya, who lived hundreds of years ago.

Is that true?

I was under the impression that Osama has fairly consistently claimed 'anti-imperialism' as his actual motivation... be it Russian occupation, American interference in Saudi Arabia before the Gulf War, or American imperialism in the Middle East.

He might BE a muslim, of a kind, but his 'platform' seems to have been anti-imperialist, rather than a strictly religious one...

1) Tim's bombs didn't work until after a trip to the Southern Phillipines.

2) Tim was in the same region of the Phillipines at the same time as Ramsi Yusef.

Except Tim McVeigh never visited the Philippines. His buddy who rented the truck married a Filipino woman (not a very consistent racist, I guess) and did business there, according to the bio I once read on McVeigh. But there's no solid evidence that he consorted with terrorists there. There's 100 million people over there, and being "in the same region" doesn't mean much. I don't think McVeigh can be classed as a Muslim-influenced terrorist..

but his 'platform' seems to have been anti-imperialist, rather than a strictly religious one...

hmmmm...and what would his goal of estalishment of a caliphate be, I wonder...

Except Tim McVeigh never visited the Philippines. His buddy who rented the truck married a Filipino woman (not a very consistent racist, I guess) and did business there, according to the bio I once read on McVeigh. But there's no solid evidence that he consorted with terrorists there. There's 100 million people over there, and being "in the same region" doesn't mean much. I don't think McVeigh can be classed as a Muslim-influenced terrorist..

His buddy Nichols did visit the Philippines. He did meet Ramzi Yusef. He did take training on explosives there. There are allegations that he was the brains behind the bombings and not Timothy.

His buddy Nichols did visit the Philippines. He did meet Ramzi Yusef. He did take training on explosives there. There are allegations that he was the brains behind the bombings and not Timothy.

Man, what is this country coming to when even Anti-Federalist terrorism has to be outsourced?

hmmmm...and what would his goal of estalishment of a caliphate be, I wonder...

A surprising number of political and religious figures from history, have found that a dictatorship is only unpallatable, when someone ELSE is the dictator...

Is that true?

I was under the impression that Osama has fairly consistently claimed 'anti-imperialism' as his actual motivation... be it Russian occupation, American interference in Saudi Arabia before the Gulf War, or American imperialism in the Middle East.

He might BE a muslim, of a kind, but his 'platform' seems to have been anti-imperialist, rather than a strictly religious one...
It's true. Read the book The Age of Sacred Terror. It's not a neocon propaganda book, rather it's an analysis of the rise of Muslim terrorism from the beginning of the Muslim Brotherhood organization to Bin Laden and the way that they use the religion to justify killing non-believers.

Except Tim McVeigh never visited the Philippines. His buddy who rented the truck married a Filipino woman (not a very consistent racist, I guess) and did business there, according to the bio I once read on McVeigh. But there's no solid evidence that he consorted with terrorists there. There's 100 million people over there, and being "in the same region" doesn't mean much. I don't think McVeigh can be classed as a Muslim-influenced terrorist..
Sorry, you're correct. Nichols, McVeigh's accomplice, traveled to Cebu and likely made contact with Ramsi Yusef or his associates.

What I enjoy most is that he was a registered republican ;)

A surprising number of political and religious figures from history, have found that a dictatorship is only unpallatable, when someone ELSE is the dictator...

"You don't get everything you want. A dictatorship would be a lot easier...So long as I'm the dictator." - George W. Bush

His buddy Nichols did visit the Philippines. He did meet Ramzi Yusef. He did take training on explosives there. There are allegations that he was the brains behind the bombings and not Timothy.

Proof would be nice. There isn't any. Nichols was in Cebu when Yusef was in Cebu, along with 3 million other people. I've spent some time out there myself, and haven't had the FBI raid my house yet.. probably because most people there aren't terrorists, and only a few percent are even Muslim. Visiting the region doesn't signify anything but a vague possibility that no one has confirmed.

Proof would be nice. There isn't any. Nichols was in Cebu when Yusef was in Cebu, along with 3 million other people. I've spent some time out there myself, and haven't had the FBI raid my house yet.. probably because most people there aren't terrorists, and only a few percent are even Muslim.
Clarke wrote that the theory of Nichols getting training in the Philippines intrigued him because he could never disprove it. “We do know that Nichols’ bombs did not work before his Philippine stay and were deadly after he returned.”

Stephen Jones, McVeigh’s defense attorney in his federal trial, also emphasized this point. “Tim couldn’t blow up a rock. Then Terry goes to the Philippines and Tim says he builds the bomb.”

Clarke also writes that the government discovered that “Nichols continued to call Cebu [City] long after his wife returned to the United States.” And Clarke adds that al Qaeda operatives had attended a “radical Islamist conference a few years earlier in Oklahoma City.”
http://www.laweekly.com/news/news/the-rohrabacher-test/483/

It's not proof, but evidence keeps building up.

"You don't get everything you want. A dictatorship would be a lot easier...So long as I'm the dictator." - George W. Bush

Exactly. :D

It's true. Read the book The Age of Sacred Terror. It's not a neocon propaganda book, rather it's an analysis of the rise of Muslim terrorism from the beginning of the Muslim Brotherhood organization to Bin Laden and the way that they use the religion to justify killing non-believers.

Confusing the means with the motive.

http://www.laweekly.com/news/news/the-rohrabacher-test/483/

It's not proof, but evidence keeps building up.

The possibility is there, but McVeigh's lawyer's defense strategy depended on making that connection, so it was in his interest to connect dots that might not have been related. More importantly though, there's nothing to link McVeigh to Muslim ideology, not in his testimony or anyone else's. I think it's more likely that McVeigh was affiliated with domestic anti-government groups, which there's some evidence for.

Confusing the means with the motive.
Not at all. Read the book. That's all I can say. I don't have it in front of me and can't be bothered with tracking down all the info on the internet. It's probably in your local library or at least you can get it on Amazon.


As for the illusion that their terrorism is rooted in politics, consider the fact that their brand of Islam isn't just a religion, it's a way of organizing human society. It's a religion and a government in one and they want to impose it upon all.

there's nothing to link McVeigh to Muslim ideology,

Depends on what you would consider as evidence enough.

Though he and his buddy Nichols did not do it as an islamist cause, they did colloborate with islamists such as Ramzi and must have been aware of who Ramzi was and found a common cause with Ramzi....I would chalk that one up as an islamist attack....that's just me and I concede that I do not have concrete proof to convince you of the same.

The possibility is there, but McVeigh's lawyer's defense strategy depended on making that connection, so it was in his interest to connect dots that might not have been related. More importantly though, there's nothing to link McVeigh to Muslim ideology, not in his testimony or anyone else's. I think it's more likely that McVeigh was affiliated with domestic anti-government groups, which there's some evidence for.
American white supremacists have often spoken out for Islamist causes. They see the Islamists as allies in the fight against the Jews. Because as we all know, Jews rule the world. For example, after 9/11 I saw quotes by supremacists that said it was "a good hit on Jew York". The faq for the racist game "Ethnic Cleansing" where you kill blacks and Jews in a race war, ends with a reference to Israel as Palestine.

It isn't hard for me to believe that the current white supremacists have links to Islamists just like their hero Hitler did.

Not at all. Read the book. That's all I can say. I don't have it in front of me and can't be bothered with tracking down all the info on the internet. It's probably in your local library or at least you can get it on Amazon.


As for the illusion that their terrorism is rooted in politics, consider the fact that their brand of Islam isn't just a religion, it's a way of organizing human society. It's a religion and a government in one and they want to impose it upon all.

What you describe isn't new... Christianity was doing exactly the same thing, 600 years ago. Hell - 200 years ago 'civilised' western nations were still bring the word of god to the heathen with a sword.

Religion and politics mesh so easily - which is why it is so important to try to keep them separate.

But - if one looks at the roots of Taliban, etc. successes - the religious/political agendas are the banners around which the troops rally. The 'war' has consistenly been againt the 'interloper'.

What you describe isn't new... Christianity was doing exactly the same thing, 600 years ago. Hell - 200 years ago 'civilised' western nations were still bring the word of god to the heathen with a sword.

Religion and politics mesh so easily - which is why it is so important to try to keep them separate.

But - if one looks at the roots of Taliban, etc. successes - the religious/political agendas are the banners around which the troops rally. The 'war' has consistenly been againt the 'interloper'.
War against the interloper. Yeah, because that's why Bin Laden mentioned his desire to take back Al Andalus (Spain). They took it many years ago and it's no fair for Europeans to take it back.

This is simply a war for conquest. It's just that they realize it will take centuries for them to win. For now Bin Laden's trying to isolate the middle eastern states from Western money, arms and influence so he can unite them as a homeland for Islam. From there he intends to spread Dar al Islam until it covers the world.

War against the interloper. Yeah, because that's why Bin Laden mentioned his desire to take back Al Andalus (Spain). They took it many years ago and it's no fair for Europeans to take it back.

This is simply a war for conquest. It's just that they realize it will take centuries for them to win. For now Bin Laden's trying to isolate the middle eastern states from Western money, arms and influence so he can unite them as a homeland for Islam. From there he intends to spread Dar al Islam until it covers the world.

Correction:

"...so he can unite them as a homeland for his kind of Islam."

There's a big difference.

Anti-American terrorist. He wanted to bring down the American government.

So the children he killed; what part of the government did they belong?

Correction:

"...so he can unite them as a homeland for his kind of Islam."

There's a big difference.
True. I appologize to non-terrorist Muslims for the mistake.

So the children he killed; what part of the government did they belong?
One of the things about terrorists is that they don't care how many innocents die.

One of the things about terrorists is that they don't care how many innocents die.

So that would hold true for Christian terrorists right?

Correction:

"...so he can unite them as a homeland for his kind of Islam."

There's a big difference.
http://www.mshepherd.com/images/captainobvious.jpg

Well, hey, I'm sick of people calling Osama bin Laden a Muslim terrorist when he's no more Muslim than George Bush is.

However, I've learned that being sick of something doesn't really matter as to whether or not it changes things.


Exactly. I see it like this: There are no -insert religion here- terrorists, for those terrorists are not following what their respective religions say about war, murder, suicide, and etc...

So in other words, there are no christian terrorists, because they are not true christians. The same with Moslems and other religions.