Why Are Tim Mcveigh And Terry Nichols Known As The Oklahoma City " Bombers "

[Fridgeir]

.....and not the Oklahoma City " terrorists " ? Seems like we don't want to accept certain things.

[Fenyang]

[Calfhierde]

A different era "Terrorist" is heard so much anymore that it's hard to remember that before 911, it actually meant something more specific. I think Nichols and McVeigh weren't known commonly as terrorists because there were never any links to organized terror organization discussed in the media. I don't even know if any links were found during the investigation. There is a book about McVeigh titled American Terrorist, if that makes you feel any better. It certainly was a terrorist act. cathbuzz 71 months ago Please sign in to give a compliment. Please verify your account to give a compliment. Please sign in to send a message. Please verify your account to send a message.

[Ruaidhri]

The event was known as the "Oklahoma City Bombing", not the Oklahoma City Terrorist Attack,... which is probably a reflection of the times. Although racial/national bias may have played a part in the way Nichols and McVeigh were portrayed in the media after their capture,... most law enforcement openly speculated that it was performed by the same or similar terrorist organizations who constructed the car bombing of the WTC in 1993, until the FBI publicly released the information re: the capture of McVeigh and later Nichols. "Terror", "Terrorism" and "Terrorist" were not buzz words in 1995,... but became so when we realized that both the OKC bombing AND the Unabomber were American terrorists and willing to label them as such, as well as a slue of terrorist attacks worldwide which really woke America up from its peaceful dream. Now, they are openly referred to terrorists, but the simple label of "bomber" still might be the first label we attach to them when we think about the OKC attack. Its all semantics anyways, isn't it? If Japan had ended the WWII by bombing two American cities with Atom Bombs to force our surrender, well, my assumption is that we would look back on that as an act of terror against our people. But, no one wants to call the American Military a terrorist for ending WWII, do they? Of course not,... but I think we could agree, philosophically, that there may not be that much of a difference in the act OR intention.. but the people getting killed almost always end up calling it terrorism after being terrified.

[Arlis]

Well, .... The event was known as the "Oklahoma City Bombing", not the Oklahoma City Terrorist Attack,... which is probably a reflection of the times. Although racial/national bias may have played a part in the way Nichols and McVeigh were portrayed in the media after their capture,... most law enforcement openly speculated that it was performed by the same or similar terrorist organizations who constructed the car bombing of the WTC in 1993, until the FBI publicly released the information re: the capture of McVeigh and later Nichols. "Terror", "Terrorism" and "Terrorist" were not buzz words in 1995,... but became so when we realized that both the OKC bombing AND the Unabomber were American terrorists and willing to label them as such, as well as a slue of terrorist attacks worldwide which really woke America up from its peaceful dream. Now, they are openly referred to terrorists, but the simple label of "bomber" still might be the first label we attach to them when we think about the OKC attack. Its all semantics anyways, isn't it? If Japan had ended the WWII by bombing two American cities with Atom Bombs to force our surrender, well, my assumption is that we would look back on that as an act of terror against our people. But, no one wants to call the American Military a terrorist for ending WWII, do they? Of course not,... but I think we could agree, philosophically, that there may not be that much of a difference in the act OR intention.. but the people getting killed almost always end up calling it terrorism after being terrified. GeminiWench 71 months ago Please sign in to give a compliment. Please verify your account to give a compliment. Please sign in to send a message. Please verify your account to send a message.

[Uani]

As I recall when the news reports on the guys who flew planes into the WTC, they don't refer to them as the "9/11 terrorists," they most commonly refer to them as the "9/11 hijackers." I'm not sure what is up with that.I do think, with the benefit of hindsight, that the events of 9/11 probably stopped another event like Oklahoma City from happening again in our lifetimes. When juxtaposed against the events of 9/11, you can see how foolish the actions of McVeigh and Nichols seem. From what I can gather, they figured that after their murderous actions, the streets would rise up with people fed up with the government enough to take up arms. Whatever.The way things are now, I seriously doubt those who might have even agreed with them in the past would even want to *appear* un-American and it is easier for such elements to identify an enemy from without, which is exactly what this administration wanted.

[Bartolome]

They are called that.. and more. In the Official report by the Government they are called Domestic Terrorist:   On April 19, 1995, at 9:02 a.m., on a morning filled with the promise of Spring, a bomb blast destroyed the nine-story Alfred downtown Oklahoma City. This, the largest act of domestic terrorism in our nation?s history, claimed 168 lives, including 19 children, and wounded Wenty-five buildings were severely damaged or destroyed and another were set on fire. Glass, shattered from windows in a ten-block radius, filled the streets and sidewalks.   SO I am not sure why you are asking, they are called bombers because they used a bomb. They are also called Domestic Terrorist since they are US Citizens. So I am missing your point unless you are not sure of the actual usage of the term "bomber".   http://www.terrorisminfo.mipt.org/pdf/okcfr_TOC.pdf P. Murrah Federal Building in674 people.300 damaged. Cars near the building Sources: http://www.terrorisminfo.mipt.org/pdf/okcfr_TOC.pdf Chris_Wagoner_is_AFK 71 months ago Please sign in to give a compliment. Please verify your account to give a compliment. Please sign in to send a message. Please verify your account to send a message.

[Arley]

and more. In the Official report by the Government they are called Domestic Terrorist:   On April 19, 1995, at 9:02 a.m., on a morning filled with the promise of Spring, a bomb blast destroyed the nine-story Alfred downtown Oklahoma City. This, the largest act of domestic terrorism in our nation?s history, claimed 168 lives, including 19 children, and wounded Wenty-five buildings were severely damaged or destroyed and another were set on fire. Glass, shattered from windows in a ten-block radius, filled the streets and sidewalks.   SO I am not sure why you are asking, they are called bombers because they used a bomb. They are also called Domestic Terrorist since they are US Citizens. So I am missing your point unless you are not sure of the actual usage of the term "bomber".   http://www.terrorisminfo.mipt.org/pdf/okcfr_TOC.pdf P. Murrah Federal Building in674 people.300 damaged. Cars near the building

[Oakden]

Their motivations were less about causing terror and more about taking revenge. It is thought that the Oklahoma City bombers were taking revenge for the way the federal government handled the incidents at Waco and Ruby Ridge. Both of the bombers were connected with anti-government militias. These militias are not terrorist groups, but simply groups exercising their right of free speech and gun ownership. The bombers crossed the line when they planned and executed the bombing.   There seemed to be no purpose to the bombing. There were no demands, and they did not immediately take responsibility. Terrorists usually have larger plan. The government and military have varying definitions of terrorists and these bombers do not fully qualify. Revenge is one motive of terrorists, but there is usually a political goal of some kind. It could be argued that the goal of the bombers was to overthrow the federal government, and it could be argued that they are terrorists.   I do not think you can compare the Oklahoma City Bombers to the Palestinian suicide bombers or the Saudi Arabian hijackers. I don't think there is any avoidance of calling them terrorists because they are white and homegrown. There have been plenty of incidents like Waco and Ruby Ridge and militias that show that the US can produce violent mad men.   Terrorism has a definition that just doesn't seem to fully apply to the Oklahoma City bombing. It is more of a revenge bombing. If everyone that takes revenge is a terrorist, that expands the definition of the word beyond usefulness.   I hope this helps. Manimal 71 months ago Please sign in to give a compliment. Please verify your account to give a compliment. Please sign in to send a message. Please verify your account to send a message.

[Donalt]

"Terrorist" is heard so much anymore that it's hard to remember that before 911, it actually meant something more specific. I think Nichols and McVeigh weren't known commonly as terrorists because there were never any links to organized terror organization discussed in the media. I don't even know if any links were found during the investigation. There is a book about McVeigh titled American Terrorist, if that makes you feel any better. It certainly was a terrorist act.