Timothy McVeigh essay

Gerry

http://www.kwtv.com/news/bombing/mcveigh-essay.htm

Its quite a good essay as they go. Maybe its just me, but I think he makes a few good points. I'm sure others more familiar with the "facts" of the case will be able to offer better analysis.

Victor

Hmmm, slightly ironic / circular .....

Timothy McVeigh (presumably) kills Iraqis for the US government. He is rewarded.

Timothy McVeigh kills Americans. He is sentenced to death.

Ultimately 'might has right' is being used to justify a particular position.

---

---

Changing call sign to SIERRA PAPA OSCAR OSCAR FOXTROT.

bugler

Yes, he has indeed some good points.Who can argue with the hypocrisy of the Iraqi comparison? It's also true for Yugoslavia, remember the train being hit by the Nato bomb? what about all the civilians killed in Belgrade? Thats right, they are 'collateral damage'.They don't deserve to receive recognition.McVeigh repeatedly has broken it down to this: The US claims it is taking a stance against oppressive regimes and so bombs Iraq/Yugoslavia causing civilian casualties,which it writes off as collateral damage and an inevitability.McVeigh strikes against a government which he sees as oppressive, causing civilian casualties and he gets the death penalty.Seems that wearing a uniform or having government authority renders you immune to justice.

I have every sympathy for those killed and wounded in the Oklahoma bomb, but I don't see why we can be any more outraged by this if we fail to bat an eye-lid at over half a million dead Iraqi kids as a result of US policy.Seems we only really care about death when its brought to our doorstep, a la Omagh bombing.Iraqi or Yugoslavian people won't be on RTE news,or the Late Late show, and no celebrities will come out to record an album for them. The Star Wars parallel McVeigh drew was very interesting.When questioned about the civilians killed and wounded in the bombing he said 'they were individually innocent but collectively evil', like the clerical workers on board the deathstar in Star Wars, and we all cheered when at the end they along with the Deathstar were all blown up.

The novelist Gore Vidal will be present at McVeighs execution, as his guest.He agreed to attend, saying that McVeigh was a young man 'with a sense of justice.' Some may find that a somewhat repulsive statement.I hope those same people are also repulsed by much of US foreign policy.

DadaKopf

McVeigh's logic is both frightening and enlightening; I'm sure many people would find his 'far out' ideas shocking but I don't. I just love the irony of McVeigh first being an instrument of mass international state terror then using his country's own training against itself. I always thought that, though regrettable in the extreme, it proved to America that the real threats aren't 'rogue nations', or middle eastern terrorists but dissenters from within. It serves them right.

His reasoning for his actions are so lucid that you can't flaw his logic. We, in Europe, stood by while Nato bombed civilians and military in the name of 'crisis management' and enjoyed the media cook-up that was the Gulf War without fully realising the giant chess game that's taking place. Justification of War Theory is a very slippery thing; there's always a way to nit-pick it but, much like the justification of war for organisations like the IRA, Hamas, Fatah, Eta and so on, McVeigh has a flawless logic.

If this event stands for anything, it's the failure of American democracy. If the system was there to realistically express dissent and have a realistic chance of represntation at law-making level, things might change, but historically, right back to the foundation of the country, the plan was always to keep 'factions' out (for those interested, read The Federalist Papers, especially Fed. 10). McVeigh pointed out the position on weapon stockpiling in America compared to Iraq; Iraq has as much a right to defence as America does yet America has waged more wars in the latter half of the 20th century than any other country and so could be viewed as an international threat. But they seem benevolent. They wouldn't be half bad if they acquired military strength purely, and only, defence purposes but America is still bent on power. Could they (or anyone for that matter) not take the example of Switzerland - a country with conscription, a heavily equipped and numerous army yet they've never had a war with anyone. They have managed this because they use their army for defence only.

I don't care what anybody says but I support McVeigh's actions in the sense that he isn't a nutter - he's a cold heartless killer. An American soldier.

the fnj

The problem really stems down no one has the balls to tell America that they’re out of line. The American "big brother" guardians of the world" attitude allows themselves to throw their weight into any situation. America would be lost without this, as they need to have wars with others to justify their huge military budget.

The word hypocrisy does not seem to apply to the US. It's all perfectly acceptable practice to give Saddam the military and the power to get into government but then they attack him when he uses the same military might to start a war.

The propaganda they use is what keeps them safe. The learnt hard lessons after the Vietnam War. The communist propaganda was sufficient to stop America fighting a bloody war. Sure they used Agent Orange etc but their methods were restricted by public opinion. It was the Americans who beat the Japanese Imperial Army one of the most effective jungle fighting units the world has ever seen. So why could they not be tribesmen? The communist used it against them. They made sure that the harsh reality of war was hit home to the American people. Now with increased control of the TV. The medium of the masses (unfortunately) America can show the horrors of these evil dictators and claim to be fighting a sterile war with smart bombs. I didn’t think anybody could believe in such a ridicules idea as sterile warfare, but I also thought nobody would be dumb enough to vote for Bush. Oh well that’s Americans for you and we can sit here and moan about them all we like but as long as the American war mongers promise to lower taxes the people will put them in office.

Mc Veigh was a sick sadistic man. He had a point and American managed to hide away from that. American are scared of reality their happy to live in America and pretend nothing goes on outside.

Clintons Cat

I have been wondering about the prophetic statement oft repeated in the media about the Bombing Of Afganistan will create a thousand Osama Bin Ladens.

Given Mcveighs actions were shaped by his experiences in the Gulf War,if the Carpet bombing of afganistan with its unavoidable collateral damage,The use of Boy Soldiers by both sides ect shape the veiws of those required to invade or garrison post war afganistan

I just wonder if America should be more concerned about creating 1000 timothy Mcveighs?

Shinji

Unlikely. McVeigh was driven by a cold logic as much as anything else, which is rare in such cases - and probably why he was so frighteningly successful.

Action in Afghanistan will create an atmosphere where more and more young muslims are prepared to give their lives to strike back against the forces attacking them - in exactly the same way that introducing the Black and Tans to Ireland swelled the ranks of the paramilitary independence forces massively. Of that, there can be no doubt. What effect it will have on a generation of Americans... God knows. Right now, they're a nation terrified of their own shadows following Sept 11 and the Anthrax scares; but they're also a nation with a notoriously short memory...

bonkey

Great article Gerry....good find.

Right....I havent fully made up my mind on what I think of the essay, so for the moment, I'm gonna play devil's advocate against some of the comments which have been made.

What McVeigh neglects to mention in all of his postings is that while the US have been active in so many wars in the last half-century, none of them (that I am aware of) were initiated by the US. They may have exercised questionable judgement in getting involved in some cases, but in general, they have either been attacked (WW2) or have come to the aid of the nation being attacked.

This, in and of itself, is not fully mitigating. I cannot defend the continued embargos and other actions taken against Iraq, and most of you are fully aware on my stance agasint the current offensive. However, in all cases, the US have defended themselves or come to the aid of someone.

Iraq, conversely, was the agressor. It showed itself willing to attack its neighbours. So, the argument of stockpiling WoMD as deterrants does not hold much water - they were (allegedly) initially used as offensive, rather than defensive, weapons.

McVeigh attacked the US for his own calculated reasons. He was the aggressor. His logic to justify this is flawed. He attmpts to justify or legitimise his striking against the US by saying that they too are oppressors. However, by this logic, they too are justified in striking back, which they are doing by executing him.

This is the crux of the matter for me. While the US has comitted atrocities, and McVeigh raises a valid point about the pathetic justification for that (collateral damage), he cannot be outraged at their actions and still justify his own. In fact, by descending to the level of the US and comitting the same atrocities he condemns them for, he also condemns himself.

Violence begets violence. Those who strike out at a target because of their "guilt" are themselves guilty of what they are protesting against. There can be no reasonable justification, other than saying "tit for tat" and accepting that when ti rolls back around and retaliation comes your way, it is perfectly justified.

Take the example he gave of the children's creches. During the Iraqi war, the Iraqi's knew the Americans were attacking, and still allowed children to be kept near a military installation. This was a knowing act of using a shield. Conversely, the US nation was at peace when McVeigh did his deed - they had no rational reason to fear for the lives of their children. One need only look to how the US reacted on Sept11 to see how they treat their civilians when potentially targetted - they get them as far away as possible for their safety.

This comparison of McVeigh's would have credence if the government buildings with children in or near them was the first target the US hit, and there was no advance warning. This was very much not the case, and therefore, one can honestly say that (at best) the Iraqis left the children there deliberately, with no concern for their safety, or (at worst) that they deliberately used them as a human shield.

Its an interesting article, and I think it raises some interesting questions. However, I also think the logic in it is quite simplistic.

The US need to be held more accountable for their "collatteral damage", and their foreign policy needs some adjustment, but this in no way justifies, legitimises or excuses McVeigh's actions.

jc