Did Timothy McVeigh have Iraqi helpers?

http://www.salon.com/2002/12/02/mcveigh_9/

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3533069&forum_id=2#32673565)

Edit: now that you have edited I understand your point better. Liberals weren't always the total hacks they are today, that's why Salon printed it back then.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3533069&forum_id=2#32673580)

His stated motivations for the bombings were decidedly liberal.

Look up what Osama Bin Laden was saying around the time of 9/11. He said we deserved it due to our meddling in the Middle East. I'd say that's a more blunt and extreme version of current mainstream liberal opinion.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3533069&forum_id=2#32673595)

Is humanism automatically liberal? Is distrust of authority liberal? What makes Timothy McVeigh a liberal?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3533069&forum_id=2#32673600)

There are six main "themes" of morality that occur in all cultures: care, fairness, liberty, loyalty, authority, and sanctity.

As an example of how we think differently, take "fairness." Conservatives think of "fairness" as a result in proportion to the effort one puts in. So if someone works very hard (and smart), it is fair for them to be rewarded accordingly. While liberals think about fairness strictly in relation to outcomes. So 20% of school applicants are black so a fair result is 20% of accepted students are black.

Additionally, liberals fundamentally do not care about authority, loyalty, and sanctity, while conservatives care about each of the six themes.

And I'm not just talking out of my ass. Here's a good article on the subject, with an even better book.

http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jun/26/righteous-mind-author-haidt-conservatives-have-bro/

McVeigh was a liberal because he did not respect authority or loyalty to his country in the slightest. Additionally, placing care (humanism) as his primary moral concern, as he clearly did, falls right in line with the typical liberal viewpoint. Studies have demonstrated that care/compassion for the oppressed as the #1 moral criteria is the hallmark of a liberal.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3533069&forum_id=2#32673683)

the only Iraq stuff i see him discussing is from after he was imprisoned

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3533069&forum_id=2#32673610)

I read this book and knew exactly where to find this info so I did retrieve it. It destroys your shitty point, so I'm not surprised this is your best response.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3533069&forum_id=2#32673776)

A classic liberal viewpoint.

Also, from the Wiki on motivations for the bombing, we get some more liberal thought:

In a 1,200-word essay[104] dated March 1998, from the federal maximum-security prison at Florence, Colorado, McVeigh claimed that the terrorist bombing was "morally equivalent" to U.S. military actions against Iraq and other foreign countries. The handwritten essay, submitted to and published by the alternative national news magazine Media Bypass, was distributed worldwide by The Associated Press on May 29, 1998. This was written in the midst of the 1998 Iraq disarmament crisis and a few months before Operation Desert Fox.

The administration has said that Iraq has no right to stockpile chemical or biological weapons ("weapons of mass destruction") — mainly because they have used them in the past.

Well, if that's the standard by which these matters are decided, then the U.S. is the nation that set the precedent. The U.S. has stockpiled these same weapons (and more) for over 40 years. The U.S. claims this was done for deterrent purposes during its "Cold War" with the Soviet Union. Why, then, it is invalid for Iraq to claim the same reason (deterrence) with respect to Iraq's (real) war with, and the continued threat of, its neighbor Iran?

The administration claims that Iraq has used these weapons in the past. We've all seen the pictures that show a Kurdish woman and child frozen in death from the use of chemical weapons. But, have you ever seen those pictures juxtaposed next to pictures from Hiroshima or Nagasaki?

I suggest that one study the histories of World War I, World War II and other "regional conflicts" that the U.S. has been involved in to familiarize themselves with the use of "weapons of mass destruction."

Remember Dresden? How about Hanoi? Tripoli? Baghdad? What about the big ones — Hiroshima and Nagasaki? (At these two locations, the U.S. killed at least 150,000 non-combatants — mostly women and children — in the blink of an eye. Thousands more took hours, days, weeks or months to die).

If Saddam is such a demon, and people are calling for war crimes charges and trials against him and his nation, why do we not hear the same cry for blood directed at those responsible for even greater amounts of "mass destruction" — like those responsible and involved in dropping bombs on the cities mentioned above?

The truth is, the U.S. has set the standard when it comes to the stockpiling and use of weapons of mass destruction.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_McVeigh

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3533069&forum_id=2#32673735)

Truff, I want nothing more than genital mutilation and slavery for my daughter, and an end-time battle with the infidels in Dabiq. We're clearly all the same.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3533069&forum_id=2#32673653)