Libs have become what they supposedly hate

San Bernardino victims:



Fort Hood victims:



Orlando victims:

Problem is being anti-government attacks aren't about race or religion. The worst government attack of the all, by Timothy McVeigh, was all about inflicting damage on the Federal Government (he bombed a Federal Government building and killed nearly exclusively other whites). The writer of that study clearly lumps in those types of attacks with Dylan Roof.

Also:

washingtontimes.com/news/2015/apr/21/police-kill-more-whites-than-blacks-but-minority-d/

TierbsHsotBoobs said:

HFNY said:

You got it

That's a problem, just as white Christian terrorism is a problem:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jun/24/majority-of-fatal-attacks-on-us-soil-carried-out-b/


If you're going to argue about being TUFF on one form of religious terrorism, be TUFF on all of them.

Also that study the writer did came before the San Bernardino shooting (14 dead) and the Orlando shooting (49 dead).

Updated facts blow up that narrative (besides conflating anti-government attacks with religious or racial attacks).

Huh? I just explained why an anti-government attack 21 years ago had nothing to do with race or religion. Read McVeigh's manifesto!

And if crazy Bernie loving white guys are such a threat like Huffington Post and CNN like to tell us (for political reasons), why is the USA spending $100 billion a year protecting us from them? Even CNN is willing to call that duck a duck.

money.cnn.com/2015/11/16/news/economy/cost-of-fighting-terrorism/

TierbsHsotBoobs said:

HFNY said:

Problem is being anti-government attacks aren't about race or religion. The worst government attack of the all, by Timothy McVeigh, was all about inflicting damage on the Federal Government (he bombed a Federal Government building and killed nearly exclusively other whites). The writer of that study clearly lumps in those types of attacks with Dylan Roof.

Also:

washingtontimes.com/news/2015/apr/21/police-kill-more-whites-than-blacks-but-minority-d/

TierbsHsotBoobs said:

HFNY said:

You got it

That's a problem, just as white Christian terrorism is a problem:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jun/24/majority-of-fatal-attacks-on-us-soil-carried-out-b/


If you're going to argue about being TUFF on one form of religious terrorism, be TUFF on all of them.

So you're cool with white Christian terrorism if it is also anti-government terrorism.

Got it.

McVeigh's manifesto:

I explain herein why I bombed the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. I explain this not for publicity, nor seeking to win an argument of right or wrong. I explain so that the record is clear as to my thinking and motivations in bombing a government installation.

I chose to bomb a federal building because such an action served more purposes than other options. Foremost, the bombing was a retaliatory strike; a counter attack, for the cumulative raids (and subsequent violence and damage) that federal agents had participated in over the preceding years (including, but not limited to, Waco.) From the formation of such units as the FBI’s “Hostage Rescue” and other assault teams amongst federal agencies during the ’80’s; culminating in the Waco incident, federal actions grew increasingly militaristic and violent, to the point where at Waco, our government – like the Chinese – was deploying tanks against its own citizens.

Knowledge of these multiple and ever-more aggressive raids across the country constituted an identifiable pattern of conduct within and by the federal government and amongst its various agencies. (see enclosed) For all intents and purposes, federal agents had become “soldiers” (using military training, tactics, techniques, equipment, language, dress, organization, and mindset) and they were escalating their behavior. Therefore, this bombing was also meant as a pre-emptive (or pro-active) strike against these forces and their command and control centers within the federal building. When an aggressor force continually launches attacks from a particular base of operation, it is sound military strategy to take the fight to the enemy.

Additionally, borrowing a page from U.S. foreign policy, I decided to send a message to a government that was becoming increasingly hostile, by bombing a government building and the government employees within that building who represent that government. Bombing the Murrah Federal Building was morally and strategically equivalent to the U.S. hitting a government building in Serbia, Iraq, or other nations. (see enclosed) Based on observations of the policies of my own government , I viewed this action as an acceptable option. From this perspective, what occurred in Oklahoma City was no different than what Americans rain on the heads of others all the time, and subsequently, my mindset was and is one of clinical detachment. (The bombing of the Murrah building was not personal , no more than when Air Force, Army, Navy, or Marine personnel bomb or launch cruise missiles against government installations and their personnel.)

I hope that this clarification amply addresses your question.

Sincerely,

Timothy J. McVeigh

And if McVeigh's purpose was to kill non-whites and non-Christians, why would he bomb one of the whitest / most Christian city in the USA?

By my count, he mentions government 7 times and Federal 8 times...ZERO mentions about race and ZERO mentions of religion.