[American_Enterprise_Institute]

Where on the Political Spectrum would you place Timothy McVeigh and and Osama Bin Laden?

[another okie]

Neither one fits anywhere on the conventional political spectrum of left and right.

[grampster]

They're both Liberal Democrats.
:evil: :neener: :what:

[PeteyPete]

Slightly left of Hillary Clinton.:evil:

[American_Enterprise_Institute]

I'm just wondering how far right they are; not conventionally conservative.

[Henry Bowman]

You are confusing left vs. right, liberal vs. conservative, and libertarian vs. authoritarian.

[MicroBalrog]

Sorry to tell you people, but the man is right.

There's no such thing as the political spectrum though. Try a map.:)

[buzz_knox]

Conseratives want to preserve the existing social order or to restore it to a perceived former paradigm. McVeigh and UBL both want(ed) to destroy the existing social order and replace it with a new paradigm of their own design. Thus, they aren't conseratives at all. They are(were) radical revolutionaries.

[FPrice]

They are both criminals.

[SaintofKillers]

one is taking a dirt nap and hopefully the other one already is or will be soon either way I think that would qualify them both to vote in the next election in Chicago.:neener:

[2dogs]

Evil b*$*****- not sure where that falls in the political spectrum.

[Dorrin79]

I'll bite.

Osama is a wanna-be Fascist Theocrat. He wants to re-create the Islamic Caliphate across the world and rule it with an iron fist. Basically Hitler, replace weird Nazi mysticism and hyper-nationalism with radical Islam. Interestingly, anti-Semetism is the same for both. I wonder why the world's loonies and would-be dictators all hate the Jewish people so much?

McVeigh is a bit more complicated. Best fit for him would be an anarchist with no moral underpinnings. (such as the non-inititation of force principle)

[2dogs]

But seriously, I subscribe to this definition:

"There is a version of the political spectrum that many Conservatives have been using without confusion for some years. The spectrum measures how much control a person believes governments should have over society. Near the extreme left end are those who believe in total government: Communists, Nazis, fascists, and other totalitarian socialists. At the extreme right end are those who believe in no government: anarchists. Inside these "fringe" positions we find the Liberals, Conservatives and Libertarians, along with variations of these. Notice that this puts Conservatives near the center, between the big-government policies of the Liberals and the minuscule-government ideas of the Libertarians. "

I have no idea what idiot McVeigh believed in politically but his methods would seem to place him on the extreme left of this scale (imposing his will on others in the extreme). As an islamo-fascist Osama belongs there too.

Of course McVeigh is no longer left or right, but 6 feet down- Osama belongs there too.

[American_Enterprise_Institute]

and in my opinion, Osama Bin Laden is a religious fundamentalist, a bit more radical than most. Certainly, no religious fundamentalists can be considered left on the political spectrum.

To prove my point, from terrorismanswers.org:

What is right-wing domestic terrorism?

Terrorism motivated by opposition to federal taxation and regulation, the United Nations, other international organizations, and the U.S. government itself, as well as by a hatred of racial and religious minorities. This type of terrorism, which has roots in the activities of white supremacist groups such as the Ku Klux Klan and antigovernment groups, flourished in the 1980s. FBI officials say right-wing militants—including skinheads, neo-Nazis, militia members, and the so-called Christian Patriot movement—now pose America’s most serious domestic terrorist threat.

What attacks have been conducted by right-wing terrorists?
Examples of right-wing domestic terrorism include:

the April 1995 Oklahoma City bombing;
the July 1996 bombing at Centennial Park during the Atlanta Olympics, which killed one person and injured more than 100;
the summer 1999 shooting sprees by lone gunmen targeting minorities in the Chicago and Los Angeles metropolitan areas, which left three people dead.
Law enforcement officials have prevented planned attacks on government offices and other right-wing terrorist plots.

[seeker_two]

Osama is a wanna-be Fascist Theocrat. He wants to re-create the Islamic Caliphate across the world and rule it with an iron fist. Basically Hitler, replace weird Nazi mysticism and hyper-nationalism with radical Islam. Interestingly, anti-Semetism is the same for both.

McVeigh, on the other hand, had ties to the Christian Identity Movement & the Aryan Nation--two organizaitons that promote Fascist Theocracy (a perverted view of Christianity, in this case). Both organizations are also anti-Semite and pro-dictatorship.

I'd say they were pretty close on the political spectrum...as Nazi-like fascists (and the term "Nazi" refers to the National Socialist German Workers' Party--a leftist organization)

[MicroBalrog]

The circle closes...:D

[Dorrin79]

AEI -

I really don't think McVeigh was 'right-wing'. I have not studied him extensively, but everything I have heard about him indicates he was an anarchist. Anarchists are neither right- (nor left-) wing.

Osama is certainly a fundamentalist. However, his brand of religious fundamentalism is in no way comparable to the Falwells and Robertsons of the world. As morally reprehensible as I find those men, they have never advocated the killing of innocents in god's (or allah's) name.

As many others have stated, the political spectrum is much better viewed as a map than as a simple left-right line

[MicroBalrog]

Neo-Fascists, Communists, Islamic Idiots are all so similar in outlook they seem to be touching.

[cuchulainn]

http://www.mcps.k12.md.us/departments/isa/ninvest/quizideology/gr/FarAuthorChart.gif

[HBK]

I would place them about 6 feet under.

[Carlos Cabeza]

Actually, McVeigh's actions were, I think, in retaliation to injustices that were perpetrated on americans by elites in various governmental organizations. Who used the veil of elected or appointed offices to cover poor judgemental actions against those americans. Perpetuated by the liberal media in the witch hunt for news that gets ratings. Funny how people love dirty laundry.....................................:barf:
I don't care for it myself. Some Joe operator looking for an opportunity to try out his extensive training, who takes orders from small dicked, power hungry little man is not my idea of American ideals.

OBL is plain Islamic fundamentalist gone over the edge, who has absolutely nothing to lose. He want to be a martyr.

[Jeff White]

Both ends of the political spectrum have had their terrorists. Right wing and anti government groups go back a lot farther then the '80s. Then on the left we've had The Weathermen, the Symbionese Liberation Army, The Students for a Democratic Society, The Black Panthers, the Animal Liberation Front.....The old adage, one man's terrorist is the next man's freedom fighter rings true. If any of these groups on either side of the spectrum ever achieves it's goals, their leaders will go down in the history books as heros.

It's all about control...it's not a straight line that goes right and left, but a circle. Go too far in either direction and you have totalitarianism. At that point it doesn't matter if the dictator started out on the left or the right, the results are the same.

BTW according to the information that the FBI supplies to local police departments, the most dangerous domestic terrorist threat is the Animal Rights movement. Not exactly from the right side of the political spectrum, but they are more likely to use violence to promote their cause then any other domestic terrorist group.

One could easily ask you if Pol Pot and Fidel Castro were right or left wing. But what difference does it make?


Jeff

[American_Enterprise_Institute]

Hey, Carlos. You had me going until you mentioned the "liberal media." Ain't no such thing...unless you consider the media's attacks against Clinton originated from the Left.

[MicroBalrog]

The media are not really liberal. Statist is a better word.

I'm a liberal, but if I were locked in a small room with the authors of the AWB...:cuss: :cuss:

[American_Enterprise_Institute]

This is according to terrorismanswers.org (which I'm assuming you received your information re: left-wing terrorists from, because it sounds familiar):

"FBI officials say right-wing militants—including skinheads, neo-Nazis, militia members, and the so-called Christian Patriot movement—now pose America’s most serious domestic terrorist threat."

That says nothing about animal-rights activists, who go around spray- painting fur coats and other serious terrorist activities.

[MicroBalrog]

AEI: Lumping Neo-Nazis and militia members together is rather silly, first of all, because their ideologies are generally diametrically opposed (not that I would ever be a member of a militia), and second, because no terrorist attack in American history AFAIK was ever committed by a militia.

[Waitone]

Terrorism is not unique to the 21st century. It seems to have been with us through all of human history.

I think terrorism to be a methodology used to gain and // or maintain political power. OBL is a fascist in islamic garb. McVey is a useful fool for a political ideology yet to be determined.

[2dogs]

McVeigh was a Right-Wing Terrorist

and in my opinion, Osama Bin Laden is a religious fundamentalist

Stalin and his communists: killed millions

Hitler and his Nazis: killed millions

Bin Laden and his fundamentalists: killed thousands

McVeigh and whoever helped him: killed over a hundred

I don't care what "wing" you want to hang on them, they were all the same as far as I can see: totalitarian minded pigs. Their "accomplishments" were the same regardless of their ideology ( though serving their own ideology) so I see no difference between them that is relevant in the real world, especially to their victims.

[cuchulainn]

That says nothing about animal-rights activists, who go around spray- painting fur coats and other serious terrorist activities. ... like firebombing buildings, spiking trees, making bomb threats, destroying property and ...
http://www.naiaonline.org/body/articles/archives/arterror.htm

[PeteyPete]

Don't feed the troll...this is a covert DU'er.....Don't let him bait you, just let it die.

[MicroBalrog]

Petey Pete: I'm a registered DU member. Any points?:)

[PeteyPete]

Micro...

If your a DU'er b/c you like trolling over there, more power to ya.

If your a DU'er b/c you share the beliefs of the weirdos over there, then you've lost your mind...especially since they equate you Izzys with "Nazis", "Killers", and "Terrorists". No sane person (especially an Israeli) could geniunely believe the bull???? those terrorist apologists spew.

[MicroBalrog]

PeteyPete: Many DU-ers are pro-Israel. Also, many DU'ers are also pro-gun (Jody is a great example).

[PeteyPete]

I'll let you in on a little secret Micro.....

Those pro-gun, pro-israeli DU'ers are what those fools call "Disrupters". They are not real democrats, more like libertarians and republicans that like to screw w/ em. I'll bet ya a Shekel ;).

[MicroBalrog]

With 1000+ post counts? Yeah, right, DU won't work like that.:D

[Carlos Cabeza]

AEI, yes, maybe an innaccurate adjective to use. It is quite possible for me to use "buzz words" when I get typing ahead of brain engagement. I do not believe you can appropriately place either of your examples into a political stereotypical category. The foundation of which OBL's beliefs are based are far from what we as americans construe as "acceptable", I find them repugnant. Where T. McV. is concerned, I think one could portray themselves as a patriot while garnering the support of other "radical" organizations, in the name of justice, be willing to commit such an atrocity and believe they were right. I am sure he went to the "room" believing his actions were justified. This, by definition is not anything close to american ideals and cannot be placed anywhere on the political spectrum. Only in the category of "radical". That is not to say that each cat. has it's own set of beliefs that can be controversial and appear repulsive to another. Regardless of political affiliation, intelligent people do not wish to indiscriminately kill innocent people, for whatever their cause or beliefs.

[PeteyPete]

Micro, come out to the US if you want a clearer picture.....in fact, come out to my old alma mater, Rutgers University.

On the campus, there is a poster that says "From the River to the Sea, Palestine will be Free!"...now you can bet your a$$ it wasn't the "Young Republicans" who hung it if you know what i mean.

[HBK]

I never mentioned it before, Micro, but most of the liberals in the US back Palestine like it's a golden calf or something. Liberals in the US are no friend of Israel.

[MicroBalrog]

On the campus, there is a poster that says "From the River to the Sea, Palestine will be Free!"...

There's similar posters in Tel-Aviv university... waved by Jews.:cuss:

[HBK]

In this uberlefty town I live in they have meetings in coffee shops about the horrible plight of the Palestinians. Makes me sick.:barf:

[MicroBalrog]

Do note my sig line, please.:evil:

[Jeff White]

AEI,
I received the information from the actual FBI report that was sent to the police department where I work. As cuchulainn posted, the Animal Rights group are not benign, non-violent protestors. They are the domestic terrorist group most likely to use violence to further their cause.

Terrorists are terrorists no matter what side of the political spectrum they come from. Depending on your point of view, they may be freedom fighters.

As far as I'm concerned, until all matters of redress have been exhausted, they are no more then politically motivated criminals, no matter what cause they espouse.

All sides of the political spectrum have produced terrorists. They always will. There will always be those disenfranchised people in every movement who will advocate violence to achieve their goals. It doesn't matter if they are from the left or the right.

I don't understand the purpose of your post. If you are trying to infer that the right has produced more terrorists then the left, I think you'll find that it's probably about equal. The tactics are the same no matter what side they come from. The radical elements of the left (Weather Underground, Black Panthers etc.) and the radical elements of the right (The Order, CSA etc.) all used bank and armored car robbery to finance their activities. The SDS and Animal Liberation Front and the radical anti abortion movement all are fond of bombings. Both left and right wing groups have had high profile shootouts with the police. In the end, nothing has changed, they are all criminals no matter which side they came from.

If one side ever gets enough popular support that they can move among the population at will and get aid from about a third of the people in the country, we will have a revolution. If they actually win the revolution, they will be hailed as freedom fighters. Until then, they will continue to be criminals.

Jeff

[w4rma]

…
McVeigh traveled to Waco, Texas during the March-April 1993 standoff between the Branch Davidians and federal agents, and was said to have been angry about what he saw. He sold firearms at a gun show in Arizona and was heard to remark on one weapon's ability to shoot down an ATF helicopter.

Although both Arizona and Michigan are host to militant anti-tax, anti-government, survivalist and racist groups, there is no evidence that he ever belonged to any extremist groups. He advertised to sell a weapon in what is described as a virulently anti-Semitic publication. After renting a Ryder truck that has been linked to the Oklahoma City bombing, McVeigh telephoned a religious community that preaches white supremacy, but no one there can remember knowing him or talking to him. His only known affiliations are as a registered Republican in his New York days, and as a member of the National Rifle Association while he was in the Army.
http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/03/29/profile.mcveigh/

An Essay on Hypocrisy
By Timothy McVeigh
…
http://www.outpost-of-freedom.com/McVeigh/OKCaug98.htm

[w4rma]

DUBAI - A taped message believed to be from fugitive militant Osama bin Laden on Tuesday warned Arab nations against supporting a war against Iraq as threatened by the United States -- but branded Saddam Hussein an infidel.
…
But the statement did not express support for Saddam. It said Muslims should support the Iraqi people rather than the country's government.

Concern that the United States has not made a valid case for war against Iraq has already divided the NATO Western alliance, with France, Germany and Belgium refusing to back preparations to assist fellow-member Turkey in the event of war.

A NATO official in Brussels said after two days of deadlock that efforts to break the impasse in the alliance would continue through the night, with a meeting of its North Atlantic Council set for 3:45 a.m. EST on Wednesday.

While urging Muslims to support the Iraqi people and repel any attack on their country, the tape said Saddam's secular "socialist" government had lost credibility.

"Socialists are infidels wherever they are," the statement said. But it added: "It does not hurt that in current circumstances, the interests of Muslims coincide with the interests of the socialists in the war against crusaders."
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0211-11.htm

[MicroBalrog]

W4RMA: And how does it really matter?:confused:

[seeker_two]

T. McV. is concerned, I think one could portray themselves as a patriot while garnering the support of other "radical" organizations, in the name of justice, be willing to commit such an atrocity and believe they were right.

Two questions for Carlos (& anyone else who wants to chime in):

1. If McVeigh had taken a different action that didn't kill so many innocents (i.e. hunting down ATF agents, etc.), would he be as reviled as he is now?

2. Would you consider Eric Rudolph to be the same type of "patriot" as McVeigh?

Thanks in advance...

[w4rma]

W4RMA: And how does it really matter?:confused:It does *not* matter unless you need to know enough about Osama's psych to track him down to kill/capture him. That means that to the vast majority of folks, the details don't matter. It's all idle laymen's chatter about something in the realm of the CIA folks. However, as long as folks are engaging in the conversation, IMHO, it's best to ground the discussion on cold hard facts (context/background for the discussion).

[Carlos Cabeza]

Seeker Two, I don't think he could have done the level of damage he did without going down himself. He wasn't willing to kill himself for his cause. The fact that he took painstaking measures to achieve his goal does say something about the level of hatred for his intended target. I do seriously believe that he and his accomplices had some support and did not entirely act alone. I saw the events unfold at Waco, and I was there at the Murrah buliding fifteen minutes after the initial blast. I see no difference in that they were both murderous acts done with little respect for life.

Eric Rudolph does not have the level of intelligence to manufacture a device on the scale of the OKC bombing. From what I understand his creations were extremely crude and unreliable. "Hillbilly pipe bombs" are what Rudy built. If his skill level was up to it and he could have found the logistical support needed, he would have done so. I am glad he has been apprehended. I do not consider Eric Rudolph to be a "patriot" , He is nothing more than a radical idealistic extremist.

[seeker_two]

Thanks, Carlos...

When I said "patriot", I was referring to how McVeigh or Rudolph would see themselves, not as what we'd see them (murderous thugs.) Sorry if I wasn't clear on that...

[Carlos Cabeza]

Thanks Seeker. Sometimes a bit of clarity is lost in the keyboard. :)