On Tue, 12 Sep 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Michael Motyka wrote:
>
>> safer, cleaner place but calling McVeigh a "freedom fighter" is off the
>> mark. 0 points for that one.
>
>Why?
Interesting question, actually... The difference between a
"random crazy" and a "freedom fighter" can be awfully dang
thin. I think that in order to qualify as a "freedom fighter"
there has to be a significant faction who support your actions
and a nonzero chance of bringing about real change.
Mcveigh, as he is, is just a random crazy. But if, say, one
out of ten American Citizens or so had looked up from the news
story and gone, "It's about time somebody started fighting those
bastards" then he'd have a constituency to whom he could be a
freedom fighter. And also a nonzero chance of causing real
change.
Not a bit of difference in his own actions -- but the context
in which his actions took place -- and his decision to make
exactly those actions in that context -- make him a random nut
rather than a freedom fighter.
It's just my opinion. But that's how I see it. Freedom
fighters do what they do because they have constituency
whose interests they are fighting for and a realistic
belief that the fight will change something. I think these
were lacking in Mcveigh's case.
Bear
