I can't understand why people like this Helder guy and Mcveigh have to intentionally hurt people to get their message across? I know death is more shocking and somehow relevates their act to a higher plane, but don't you think they would get more of a following or atleast a general acceptance from the population for what they have done if it didn't invlove, atleast intentionally, the harm of innocents? Mcveigh Bombed a fed building, that housed the ATF as well as a daycare. If he had chose the bldg at night or another unpopulated target do you think he would have been percieved differently. The whole "collateral damage" statement really painted him as the devil. But I do find it funny how when the government does the same the other cheek is often turned. Atleast this guy Helder didn't use a gun or we'd be hearing about more gun laws. As I (we) may agree with some of these guys political views, I cannot sanction the use of violence on innocents to get your point across. However, this being said, where would we be if the founding fathers held the same view. I am sure they had to know that some innocent people would be harmed/killed if they followed their convictions. So where do we draw the line. When does a right wing activist become a patriotic hero? When is the death of innocent people acceptable to the cause? Just some things to think about.