Nichols turns to Christ, tells victims' families how to heal

Tiassa

Tiassa

Let us not launch the boat ...
Valued Senior Member
Source: Washington Post
Link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52840-2004Aug9.html
Title: "Nichols Seeks Forgiveness in Okla. City Bombing"
Date: August 10, 2004

Terry Nichols was sentenced to 161 life sentences today in Oklahoma on state charges surrounding his role in the 1995 bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City.

"My heart truly goes out to all the victims, survivors and anyone who has been affected by the Oklahoma City bombing," he said. "Words cannot adequately express the sorrow I have had over the years for the grief that so many have endured and continue to suffer. I am truly sorry for what occurred."

Nichols read calmly from a prepared statement as he sat in the witness stand, his ankles and wrists shackled, the word "INMATE" stamped in large black letters on the back of his blue-gray prison suit. He asked for forgiveness and said he had found "a real and personal relationship with God through . . . Jesus Christ."

"I do pray that for many, that this day will be the beginning of their long-awaited healing process," said Nichols, 49. "And I pray that all who hold any hatred, bitterness and unforgiveness toward me, that they will find in their hearts to forgive me, as others have done, for this is the first stage toward true healing."

He invited the relatives of those killed in the bombing, as well as others, to write to him if they felt it would "assist in their healing process."

Source: Washington Post
Click to expand...

Comment:

A note to future convicts facing multiple life sentences: Don't tell the families of your victims what their business is.

I wonder if such presumptuousness he learned from God through Jesus Christ?

Perhaps 161 life sentences seems rather a futile demonstration, but perhaps that can be said to be part of the point. Just like empty, vulgar language can sometimes signal an aspect of ineffability, so does such a sentence that no one person can actually serve. To wit: telling the families of one's victims how to go about the healing process is a moral outrage. Bombing the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City for what essentially amounts to the hell of it? Now that is a (expletive) outrage.

Nichols? He's not just in for life. He's in there for (expletive) life!

At least he didn't apologize for letting nineteen men with box knives (expletive) outshine him.
_____________________

• Moreno, Sylvia. "Nichols Seeks Forgiveness in Okla. City Bombing." Washington Post, August 10, 2004; page A15. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52840-2004Aug9.html

See Also -

• Associated Press. "Text of Terry Nichols' statement." Seattle Post-Intelligencer, August 9, 2004. See http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/apus_story.asp?category=1110&slug=Nichols Sentence Text

 
Wow, tiassa, you really do know what's best for them. Thank goodness you are here to tell us all what should be considered a moral outrage. I don't want to use the word stupidity.
 
I should know better than to be subtle while pitching a minor fit. Nor would I want to use that word, §outh§tar.

Or ... are you advocating for Terry Nichols?
 
Well, 5 minutes after watching 'Bowling for Columbine..', you sounded a 'little' self righteous in your comments... kinda irritated me, I'm sorry. :(

What basis do you have for being the spokesperson for the families and knowing what's best for them?
 
Too bad Christ didn't come to Nichols before all those people died. The savior may be a lot of things, but punctual doesn't seem to be one of 'em.
 
That is kinda lame. Forgive him because that's the first step to healing. Yeah. Right. How about forgiving him right off the fucking planet. Forgive him so long and hard that there's no life left in his miserable murderous body.

Hangin's too good for him. Burnin's too good for him. He oughta be torn into little bits and pieces and buried ALIVE!!!! -The trial of Lincoln Stern.

Seriously he's a piece of crap and screw his forgiveness. If he really wanted to give those families healing, he'd let them come up and kick him in the nuts for a while. Or worse. Offer his life up to the mob for redemption.
 
Nichols had nothing to gain by asking for forgiveness other than inner spirtual healing. He does however have a unique opportunity to help prevent the next ok bombing. He belong to a number of groups and learned a lot about internal terrorism from others who want further destruction of our goverment.

The FBI needs the information and contacts that are inside his head. Than again maybe he is sharing that information and the FBI is smart enough to keep that information on a need-to-know basis.

Does anyone know if Nichols ever said why her partipated in the bombings?

A really good source of information to the early days of the white supremest movement (which mcveigh at least subscribed too), is Dee Morris and his early days in the southern poverty law center.
 
Nichols read calmly from a prepared statement as he sat in the witness stand, his ankles and wrists shackled, the word "INMATE" stamped in large black letters on the back of his blue-gray prison suit. He asked for forgiveness and said he had found "a real and personal relationship with God through . . . Jesus Christ."
Click to expand...
A lot of Christians swallow this shit up. And I think that even some family members of victims would feel some sympathy for him now that he found God. It doesn’t seem important to ANYONE to ask “why?”. What were their motives. Oohh yeah that’s right! They were evil. Case closed.
I also don’t understand why a criminal who shows remorse is often given a more lenient sentence.
 
tiassa said:
On which count?
Click to expand...

How about:

--
A note to future convicts facing multiple life sentences: Don't tell the families of your victims what their business is.
--


So far all I see in this thread are smears of self-righteousness.
 
dsdsds said:
A lot of Christians swallow this shit up. And I think that even some family members of victims would feel some sympathy for him now that he found God. It doesn’t seem important to ANYONE to ask “why?”. What were their motives. Oohh yeah that’s right! They were evil. Case closed.
I also don’t understand why a criminal who shows remorse is often given a more lenient sentence.
Click to expand...


Can I ask you, in your estimation, is there anyway for him to make partial amends or soften the blow of his mass murdering spree?

I would contend that it is done and that as such he is no longer ever fit to return to society again. But within his situation there is a real need for him to make a personal journey to deal with the death and mayhem that he has caused.

Part of that is helping the authorities (if he truly believes that today what he did is wrong he will) find and stop future members of his former movement.

Open himself to communication with those relatives of victims that need his coorespondance.

Make a public apology (which this article says he just did) and present information to the public at large on his direction and progress.

It may be a tagline that "christians swallow" but in the end unless he escapes incarceration he will never see freedom again which makes me wonder what his motive could be? It is not leniency because it is not a condition that is being offered to him.

So then, I contend that maybe his motives are pure even if his earlier actions were evil.
 
What a great society we have. A mass murderer that blew up 161 people including children in a daycare....gets to tell the victims they need to start healing and forgive him.

The fact that he is alive to say such ridiculus things is an indication of how far we have strayed...
 
§outh§tar said:
How about :

--
A note to future convicts facing multiple life sentences: Don't tell the families of your victims what their business is.
--


So far all I see in this thread are smears of self-righteousness.
Click to expand...

§outh§tar, I was wondering if you could manage to be courteous long enough to answer a very simple question already put before you?

• Are you advocating for Terry Nichols?

The man is a terrorist. You think I'm being self-righteous? Fine with me.

Because frankly I just don't know what is the problem you have with it. Nichols just stood in a court of law and attempted to order the families of his victims--and if you want to be technical, they, too, are his victims ... so it can be fairly said that Nichols just stood in court and ordered his victims to forgive him. He claimed God's favor insofar as the Lord has shepherded him through his trial. The theological aspects are open for examination or derision in the Religion forum, but here I'm referring to the sheer pretense of Nichols' performance.

I'm curious, §outh§tar, is it Nichols alleged conversion to Christ that you're sympathetic to? Is it his moneychanger mentality on that faith, that he should be able to invest minimum resources and achieve maximum return?

A simple question: If it was your child or sibling or spouse or parent murdered in Oklahoma City that day, how would you feel about one of the killers getting up and phrasing his regret in the form of an order to you to get the hell over it because God says so and is on his side?

Think of it this way: When your earthly passage is done, and you stand before the God of your choosing, will you repent of your sins and be forgiven, or will you tell God that He owes it to you to forgive?

In the future, §outh§tar, I will start applying that theory to terrorism, that people just need to forgive the terrorists. And when folks ask me why I have that opinion, I'll shrug and say, "I don't, ask §outh§tar about it. After all, having an opinion is ... well, we don't want to use the word 'stupidity', do we?"

Now, we're going to take a couple minutes to look at the language of your posts. For your convenience, I won't challenge you by blocking these portions in quotes:

• "Wow, tiassa, you really do know what's best for them."
• "Thank goodness you are here to tell us all what should be considered a moral outrage."
• "What basis do you have for being the spokesperson for the families and knowing what's best for them? "

Now, my question to you regarding those points: Whence comes the reaction to the presumed authoritarianism, §outh§tar?

Otherwise, why should I not point out that I have no obligation to give a rat's about how you feel about it? Why should I avoid pointing out that it's your own damn problem if a Michael Moore movie gets you so disturbed that you'll advocate for a convicted terrorist?

Seriously ... are you advocating for Terry Nichols in these posts?

Nichols would have been less repugnant if he'd stood in court and refused to apologize on the grounds that those folks deserved to die. Instead he served up another round of hatred, this time masked in a veil of Chrisitanity that almost--almost--everybody can see through.

But his words did nothing to soothe the dozen or so relatives and survivors who attended the sentencing. They said they remained disappointed that Nichols did not directly admit to his role in the bombing, and they said they were unimpressed with his profession of faith and entreaties for forgiveness and reconciliation.

"It was all self-serving," said Darlene Welch of Guthrie, who lost her 4-year-old niece, Ashley Eckles, and the child's paternal grandparents the day of the bombing. "It's just all about what's good for him."

As for writing Nichols, Gloria Taylor of Edmond, whose 41-year-old daughter, Teresa Lea Lauderdale, was killed in the blast, said: "I can put my stamp to better use. There will never really be closure. He's asking us our forgiveness. Looking us in the eye might have helped."

Source: Washington Post
Click to expand...
____________________

• Moreno, Sylvia. "Nichols Seeks Forgiveness in Okla. City Bombing." Washington Post, August 10, 2004; page A15. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52840-2004Aug9.html
 
for christ sake
killing someone solves NOTHING
it has NEVER IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD BROUGHT ONE VICTIOM BACK TO LIFE
the only outrage is people like you who havent advanced since the Romens
 
letting a mass murderer live never solved anything....its a question of justice.

you agree criminals should be punished, yes? also, its romans and they did some things better than us for sure.

why people like you have put a line in the sand at death is beyond me. all of life in a cell is advanced, but killing them is primitive? what is it, the 1st commandment?

anyway we've been through this before on the capital punishment threads so lets just agree to disagree....what do you think specifically about our friendly bombers remarks?
 
Asguard said:
for christ sake
[incert rather strange confusing and outraged rant here.]
Click to expand...

Uuum, what was all of this bout, Asguard? Who was this comment even directed toward? Who here is calling for blood? I'm afraid I'm just not reading you on this. If you'd calm down, rephrase your message, and make more prudent use of the caps lock key I would very much appreciate it.

Anyhow, I think that Tiassa's view on this is entirely valid. South Star, you're just trying to confuse things and put words in his mouth, Tiassa never suggested what the families of the direct victims of the bombings aught to do, but made a suggestion about what mass murderers aught not do on the stand, which seems completely reasonable to me.

One has to admit that in this context Nichols' comments come across as sounding a bit like, "Hey, what's with all the hatin'? Can't we all just chill here for a minuet? Listen, I've got JC on my side, now, and we both think it'd be really cool if you'd all just forgive and forget! I mean hey, I'm ready to move on, shouldn't you be, too? Lets be reasonable about all of this."

An apology is almost insulting in this instance, and certainly aggravating. It seems a lot more like Nichols, if he's genuine, has just retreated into a sort of la la land where his crime is justified, or at least not such a bit deal anymore. For the families of the victims, of course, there will never be that sort of solace.
 
for christ sake
killing someone solves NOTHING
it has NEVER IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD BROUGHT ONE VICTIOM BACK TO LIFE
the only outrage is people like you who havent advanced since the Romens
Click to expand...

And the fucked up thing is that it's so much cheaper to let them live. However, I feel it would be better just to kill him. At least put him in a situation where his fellow inmates will kill him off. They don't care for child-killers in prison, you know.
 
Mystech

read up, "The fact that he is alive to say such ridiculus things is an indication of how far we have strayed... "

invert_nexus

how is it fucked up that sociaty values life more than a murder does?
corse its going to be more expencive, if you have nothing to lose why WOULDNT you fight forever? even if its for just one more day

the sad thing is people who want to take those rights to fight away, yea who cares so much if they rot in jail and then 20 years latter we think "ops we made a mestake" and pay them $20000? comp for keeping them wrongly in jail for all that time

bit hard to glue someones head back on

people who at this point are saying "who cares if someone innocent dies so long as the guilty do too" make me want to throw up

and those of you who are right now thinking "but yea thats well and good but when its so oviouse.. " should read about linsy chambellin who everyone KNEW was guilty untill surprise surprise a dingo really DID take her baby and she was a victom not a murder 15 years (or whatever it was) latter when forensic science advanced and that red stuff was car spray and NOT blood

or maybe think about who killed JFK for a while, no one really knows the truth even now but wasnt someone exiquided for it?

i also belive no one has gone too far to be forgiven or of benifit to sociaty, if in no other way than for profilers to resurch so that it doesnt happen again
 
Asguard said:
or maybe think about who killed JFK for a while, no one really knows the truth even now but wasnt someone exiquided for it?
Click to expand...

I'll assume you mean executed, and yeah I guess you could say that's what happened, but it wasn't at the hands of the US government. Jack Ruby got to Oswald while he was being transferred under police escort.

Honestly I'm no proponent of the death sentence in most cases, but in instances when you have people, fanatics, involved in mass murder don't you think there's some line that must be drawn? When it strays away from some sort of misguided form of punishment and becomes a precaution to ensure that there's no chance that this person can have a second chance to strike (even if it's unlikely after their in custody) there does come a time when it's necessary to eliminate people with the desire and capacity to commit such awful crimes.

Asguard said:
i also belive no one has gone too far to be forgiven or of benifit to sociaty, if in no other way than for profilers to resurch so that it doesnt happen again
Click to expand...

Again, rehabilitation in favor of punishment, redemption rather than condemnation and re-release, these are things I can agree with, but you're painting a picture of the world with far too optimistic a brush. The fact is that there are people who are going to be nothing but a detriment to society in a very big way quite despite any attempts we could make to set things otherwise. This is an odd position I find myself in, but I’m going to have to defend the death penalty in certain extreme cases. There’s a line between needlessly harsh punishment, and society simply taking actions to protect itself from madmen who would blow up innocent people.
 
Last edited:
see thats where you and i differ (B\W thanks for corecting my spelling, i know its apaling but thats beside the point, and im sorry, i was wrong about JFK's "killer"), i REFUSE to draw lines. Drawing lines never works because there are always exceptions. Even leaving aside the fact that there are countries that work PERFECTLY well without the DP, even a case that looks PERFECT maybe wrong.

if you are interested please read these links or look up the case

http://law.anu.edu.au/highcourt_project/Chamberlain Case rtf.rtf
http://www.crimelibrary.com/fillicide/azaria/

this was a case that went all the way to the high court
NO ONE doubted she was lying, people even thought that Azaria meant ‘sacrifice in the wilderness’ and that she was sacrifided in a 7th day adventasts right

she wasnt guilty at all, she was telling the truth from the start. A dingo really DID take the baby but no one belived her. If this tragity had happened in the US she would probably be dead, instead this case is a lession that even the courts arnt perfect. As long as humans are fallable the DP isnt a debate about ethics its a crime in itself
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top