#48 You ask, "Should I have said Military?"
Were the "Muslims" you're so certain did the killing also military?
If so, why didn't you mention that qualifier?
As for McVeigh and Nichols:
Timothy McVeigh claimed no formal religion but held some Christian influences, while Terry Nichols had connections to the Christian Identity movement and other anti-government groups, blending various beliefs rather than adhering strictly to mainstream Christianity. Both were influenced by white supremacist and radical anti-government ideologies leading to the Oklahoma City bombing.
Timothy McVeigh
Stated he was an agnostic/atheist during his trial.
Was baptized Catholic as a child but renounced it.
Expressed some Christian views at times, but was primarily motivated by anti-government, survivalist, and white supremacist ideologies (like The Turner Diaries).
Terry Nichols
Had deeper affiliations with the Christian Identity movement, a racist and antisemitic pseudo-Christian belief system.
Mixed Christian Identity with militia movements, survivalist groups, and anti-government beliefs.
Neither man was a conventional, practicing mainstream Christian; their beliefs were a radicalized amalgamation of fringe ideologies, with Nichols having more overt ties to specific extremist Christian-affiliated groups.
Were the shooters in Australia, who you confidently announce as "Muslims," "conventional, practicing mainstream Muslims?
Or were the shooters in Australia, like McVeigh and Nichols, simply horrible murderers, religion having nothing to do with it?
And, if so, why the necessity to brand them "Muslims" and not just the horrific murderers they are?
It didn't matter what motivated Omar Mateen, his victims are just as dead as are the victims in Oklahoma City and, now, in Australia.
