1997-06-04 - Re: McVeigh

Header Data

From: winsock@rigel.cyberpass.net (WinSock Remailer)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: 390260a0468f9d5ce1563a0705dc0c62c34ab2f9d3be5032cea184a5cc0ab983
Message ID: <199706041720.KAA01490@sirius.infonex.com>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1997-06-04 17:53:30 UTC
Raw Date: Thu, 5 Jun 1997 01:53:30 +0800

Raw message

From: winsock@rigel.cyberpass.net (WinSock Remailer)
Date: Thu, 5 Jun 1997 01:53:30 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: McVeigh
Message-ID: <199706041720.KAA01490@sirius.infonex.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain




Lucky Green <shamrock@netcom.com> wrote:

>At 08:41 PM 6/2/97 -0400, Hallam-Baker wrote:
>>Appologists for McVeigh should consider that his actions did not 
>>advance the militia cause an iota, it destroyed it and along with 
>>it much of the right wing fringe.
>
>"Follow the money" is usually sound advice. More general, ask "who
>benefits". Clearly, the constitutional militias and civil libertarians are
>the losers of the Oklahoma bombing. The sole benefactors are the statists
>and numerous government agencies.
>
>'Nuff said,

Amen, Lucky. Perhaps it hasn't been pointed out often enough here,
but this man spent YEARS in the US military, including a very brutal
(if short) war. From all accounts, he attended exactly ONE Michigan
militia meeting, and they kicked him out when they heard his violent
rantings before the meeting was even over. There are no reports of
him attending ANY other militia meetings.

Is it only me, or could the phenomenon of militias being painted into
(alleged) responsibility for this terrorist act not have happened in
the absence of virulent anti-second-amendment-rights bias in the
media? I thought so.
me












Thread