"anti-war" was just a myth and part of the system of propaganda lies created by the enemies of the United States.
The truth is, anyone who is truthfully anti war will not make folk heroes of militant despots engaging in war against the United States, like the supposedly "anti-war" hippies did.
Anti war is just that: anti war.
Fole heroes of the hippies:
Here is a bit of your previous post
"McVeigh's motivation was not just about Waco. Waco was the second case when the US government assassinated innocent Americans. Had Waco been just the first case, and not the repeat of the crime, which can be interpreted as a permenant change to our government with regartd to its propensity to assassinate innocent Americans, it is arguable that the OKC bombing would never have happened."
Two observations It appears in this post that you give slack to Mcveigh, claiming his motivations were valid but he just overacted.....
And it also appears that you are claiming Koresh was some how an innocent victim, he was a criminal pure and simple ,however a majority of those who died were innocent, guilty by association? no that would be quite unfair.
How about the four who died at Kent were they pacifists who's anti -war claim would be valid, or was every one who may have participated in any way, in your view guilty by association? Because of agreement in some way with a radical were they guilty and their deaths just?
It would appear that you have answered me this way .
The death of a radical right winger is cause for revolt.
The death of some left winger isn't even an unfortunate over re-action on the part of Gov't?
We may have found the root of the difference in our definitions of the terms we are using
You apply differing definitions for the same word depending upon the political motive of the person we are discussing.