[url]http://www.outpost-of-freedom.com/mcveigh/okcaug98.htm[/url]

[b]A decorated U.S. Army veteran of the Persian Gulf War, McVeigh hereby offers his contribution to the debate over U.S. policy toward Iraq, a policy that McVeigh says is marked by a "deep hypocrisy."

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

An Essay on Hypocrisy
By Timothy McVeigh

The administration has said that Iraq has no right to stockpile chemical or biological weapons ("weapons of mass destruction") -- mainly because they have used them in the past.

Well, if that's the standard by which these matters are decided, then the U.S. is the nation that set the precedent. The U.S. has stockpiled these same weapons (and more) for over 40 years. The U.S. claims that this was done for deterrent purposes during the "Cold War" with the Soviet Union. Why, then is it invalid for Iraq to claim the same reason (deterrence) -- with respect to Iraq's (real) war with, and the continued threat of, its neighbor Iran?

The administration claims that Iraq has used these weapons in the past. We've all seen the pictures that show a Kurdish woman and child frozen in death from the use of chemical weapons. But, have you ever seen these pictures juxtaposed next to pictures from Hiroshima or Nagasaki?

I suggest that one study the histories of World War I, World War II and other "regional conflicts" that the U.S. has been involved in to familiarize themselves with the use of "weapons of mass destruction."

Remember Dresden? How about Hanoi? Tripoli? Baghdad? What about the big ones -- Hiroshima and Nagasaki? (At these two locations, the U.S. killed at least 150,000 non-combatants -- mostly women and children -- in the blink of an eye. Thousands more took hours, days, weeks, or months to die.)

If Saddam is such a demon, and people are calling for war crimes charges and trials against him and his nation, why do we not hear the same cry for blood directed at those responsible for even greater amounts of "mass destruction" -- like those responsible and involved in dropping bombs on the cities mentioned above?

The truth is, the U.S. has set the standard when it comes to the stockpiling and use of weapons of mass destruction.

Hypocrisy when it comes to death of children? In Oklahoma City, it was family convenience that explained the presence of a day-care center placed between street level and the law enforcement agencies which occupied the upper floors of the building. Yet when discussion shifts to Iraq, any day-care center in a government building instantly becomes "a shield." Think about that.

(Actually, there is a difference here. The administration has admitted to knowledge of the presence of children in or near Iraqi government buildings, yet they still proceed with their plans to bomb -- saying that they cannot be held responsible if children die. There is no such proof, however, that knowledge of the presence of children existed in relation to the Oklahoma City bombing.)

When considering morality and mens rea [criminal intent] in light of these facts, I ask: Who are the true barbarians?

Yet another example of this nation's blatant hypocrisy is revealed by the polls which suggest that this nation is greatly in favor of bombing Iraq.

In this instance, the people of the nation approve of bombing government employees because they are "guilty by association" -- they are Iraqi government employees. In regard to the bombing in Oklahoma City, however, such logic is condemned.

What motivates these seemingly contradictory positions? Do people think that government workers in Iraq are any less human than those in Oklahoma City? Do they think that Iraqis don't have families who will grieve and mourn the loss of their loved ones? In this context, do people come to believe that the killing of foreigners is somehow different than the killing of Americans?

I recently read of an arrest in New York City where possession of a mere pipe bomb was charged as possession of a "weapon of mass destruction." If a two pound pipe bomb is a "weapon of mass destruction," then what do people think that a 2,000-pound steel-encased bomb is?

I find it ironic, to say the least, that one of the aircraft that could be used to drop such a bomb on Iraq is dubbed "The Spirit of Oklahoma."

When a U.S. plane or cruise missile is used to bring destruction to a foreign people, this nation rewards the bombers with applause and praise. What a convenient way to absolve these killers of any responsibility for the destruction they leave in their wake.

Unfortunately, the morality of killing is not so superficial. The truth is, the use of a truck, a plane, or a missile for the delivery of a weapon of mass destruction does not alter the nature of the act itself.

These are weapons of mass destruction -- and the method of delivery matters little to those on the receiving end of such weapons.

Whether you wish to admit it or not, when you approve, morally, of the bombing of foreign targets by the U.S. military, you are approving of acts morally equivalent to the bombing in Oklahoma City. The only difference is that this nation is not going to see any foreign casualties appear on the cover of Newsweek magazine.

It seems ironic and hypocritical that an act viciously condemned in Oklahoma City is now a "justified" response to a problem in a foreign land. Then again, the history of United States policy over the last century, when examined fully, tends to exemplify hypocrisy.

When considering the use of weapons of mass destruction against Iraq as a means to an end, it would be wise to reflect on the words of the late U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis. His words are as true in the context of Olmstead as they are when they stand alone: "Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example."

Sincerely

Timothy J. McVeigh

[/b]

[b]READ THIS:[/b]

"As you read the essay, understand why I have always felt that McVeigh lit the fuse, [b]but is [u]not[/u] guilty of a crime[/b]. At this past weekends Jubilation 98, I met James Nichols and Bob Papovich {Freedom's End}.  While speaking with Bob, and he, having glanced at my writings on the subject Oklahoma City Bombing, wondered why I could say that McVeigh lit the fuse, but was NOT GUILTY. Quite simply, the answer lies in each of our respective states of mind with regard to our relationship with the US government. [b]McVeigh had determined that he was at war with the US government.[/b] I can empathizes with his feelings, for I judge my circumstance to be the same. It is only those who have not come to the point of that recognition that have difficulty in understanding this perspective." -- opf

[b]NOW READ THIS:[/b]

[b]Gospel of MATTHEW, Chapter 7:[/b]

16   [red][b]Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?[/b][/red]

17   [red][b]Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.[/b][/red]

18   [red][b]A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.[/b][/red]

19   [red][b]Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.[/b][/red]

20   [red][b]Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.[/b][/red]

Hmmm. [red][b]'By their fruits ye shall know them.'[/b][/red]

What do the fruits of Timothy McVeigh tell us?

That he was a wanton murderer!

That he purposefully murdered little children whose Savior went to the Cross on their behalf.

And on behalf of us all!

That he murdered innocent men and women, whose 'crimes' against him consisted of nothing more than going to a government office for personal business!

That his murderous idiocy 'killed' the GOP-led bid to overturn the AWB that has just been passed in 1994!

That his murderous idiocy created a great emotional national forum within which Bill Clinton 'found his voice' and went on to great popularity and further damage to our Republic!

In the Name of the Most High, I would have pushed the plunger into that DEMON's veins and considered it a story that I would delight in telling my Grandchildren one day!

I would wish the story to be retold at the Great Wedding Feast, as well!

Surely, THIS DEMON is no hero to anyone!

All you have to do is ask yourself this:

What does [b]Jesus[/b] think of Timothy McVeigh?

[b]Gospel of MATTHEW, Chapter 18:[/b]

6   [red][b]But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.[/b][/red]

7   [red][b]Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh![/b][/red]

[b]I think Timothy McVeigh is roasting in HELL right about now![/b]

Eric The(HowAboutYou?)Hun[>]:)]

Kind of absurd to condemn the US for using violence as a part of its foreign diplomacy.  Most great nations do.  The US isn't some sort of deranged or new, dangerous precedent.

Further, violence is often delivered on peaceful countries that have never done anything to anybody.  All the Muslims said that we deserved 9/11 for aiding Israel and stationing troops in Arabia, but what about the Pillipenes and Australians?  They've been targets of Al-Qaeda violence, they dont have troops in Arabia or send money to Israel.

America's not perfect, and it's often hypocritical, but did McVeigh's killing 135 people and ruining their families' lives change any of that?  Did it bring the Branch Davidians or Weaver's wife and kid back to life?  Did it repeal the 1994 AWB?  No.

Did 9/11 end US support for Israel, result in troops leaving Arabia? No. There's more aid than ever to Israel, more troops in the Gulf about to take out Saddam, and the Taliban lost control over Afghanistan. If anything, terrorism is counterproductive to addressing Al-Qaeda's grievances. The fact they continue just shows how filled with hate and evil they are.

Tim McVeigh wrote more truth in that essay then anybody i have read in a long time.

And unlike all other so called freedom figthers on the planet he never once ask for forgivness or begged for mercy, he was a true soldier loyal to his beliefs and defiant till the end.

R.I.P Tim McVeigh

Burn in Hell Timothy McViegh is more like it.
I wish I believed in hell because that's where that child-murdering, stupid, gutless, piece of crap son of a bitch belongs.  And there should be a place reserved right next to him for the wonderfully-thoughtful, delightfully-intelligent, candidates for sainthood that think he was a "true soldier loyal to his beliefs and defiant to the end."

Was THAT better?  [%|]

Freedom Fighter????  So far today, you are proving more and more what ** ***** *** ***.

[red]And just what in the hell did I just say in the previous post???  Don't waste my time by making me edit posts.  LarryG, your IM box is full. RAF[/red]

Well, being as how this turned into a bash Tim thread, I'll just let him answer in his own words, being as how none of the posters here responded in the other thread....


Ran across a site that has some of Tim's ideas in his own words. For those of you who have never heard them here they are, with links. I'll be posting more...
[url]http://www.outpost-of-freedom.com/mcveigh/okcwhy.htm[/url]

[b]McVeigh's Letter to Fox News

The following letter has been authenticated and was sent to Fox News Correspondent Rita Cosby. The opening statement was a photocopied statement in McVeigh's writing. The question-and-answer section following it is clearly an original version in McVeigh's writing.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I explain herein why I bombed the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. I explain this not for publicity, nor seeking to win and argument of right or wrong. I explain so that the record is clear as to my thinking and motivations in bombing a government installation.

I chose to bomb a federal building because such an action served more purposes than other options. Foremost, the bombing was a retaliatory strike; a counter attack, for the cumulative raids (and subsequent violence and damage) that federal agents had participated in over the preceding years (including, but not limited to, Waco.) From the formation of such units as the FBI's "Hostage Rescue" and other assault teams amongst federal agencies during the '80's; culminating in the Waco incident, federal actions grew increasingly militaristic and violent, to the point where at Waco, our government - like the Chinese - was deploying tanks against its own citizens.

[red]Knowledge of these multiple and ever-more aggressive raids across the country constituted an identifiable pattern of conduct within and by the federal government and amongst its various agencies.(see enclosed) For all intents and purposes, federal agents had become "soldiers" (using military training, tactics, techniques, equipment, language, dress, organization, and mindset) and they were escalating their behavior.[/red]  Therefore, this bombing was also meant as a pre-emptive (or pro-active) strike against these forces and their command and control centers within the federal building. When an aggressor force continually launches attacks from a particular base of operation, it is sound military strategy to take the fight to the enemy.

Additionally, borrowing a page from U.S. foreign policy, I decided to send a message to a government that was becoming increasingly hostile, by bombing a government building and the government employees within that building who represent that government. Bombing the Murrah Federal Building was morally and strategically equivalent to the U.S. hitting a government building in Serbia, Iraq, or other nations. (see enclosed) Based on observations of the policies of my own government, I viewed this action as an acceptable option. From this perspective, what occurred in Oklahoma City was no different than what Americans rain on the heads of others all the time, and subsequently, my mindset was and is one of the clinical detachment. (the bombing of the Murrah building was not personal , no more than when Air Force, Army, Navy, or Marine personnel bomb or launch cruise missiles against government installations and their personnel.)

I hope that this clarification amply addresses your question.

Sincerely,
Timothy J. McVeigh
USP Terre Haute (IN)

Part II:

Q: What's the deal with you expressing interest in having your execution televised?

A: First, it has nothing to do with seeking to be on camera - just look at how few on-camera interviews I have done. Rather, it is to make a point: In the U.S. we show, on television, re-enactments of real executions; mock-fictional executions (in movies); and real executions from foreign countries - yet we are ashamed to show our own justice system in action. It is ironic that we show foreign executions, but are afraid to show identical domestic laws being carried out.

Q: What were some other options considered besides bombing? Who would you have targeted?

A: I waited two years from "Waco" for non-violent "checks and balances" built into our system to correct the abuse of power we were seeing in federal actions against citizens. The Executive; Legislative; and Judicial branches not only concluded that the government did nothing wrong (leaving the door open for "Waco" to happen again), they actually gave awards and bonus pay to those agents involved, and conversely, jailed the survivors of the Waco inferno after the jury wanted them set free.

Other "checks and balances" likewise proved futile: media awareness and outcry (the major media failed in its role as overseer of government ally); protest marches; letter campaigns; even small-budget video production; etc. - all failed to correct the abuse

When violent action thus became an option, I considered, among other things, a campaign of individual assassination, with "eligible" targets to include: Federal Judge Walter Smith (Waco trial); Lon Horiuchi (FBI sniper at Ruby Ridge); and Janet Reno (making her accept "full responsibility" in deed, not just word).

Q: Further describe motivations for bombing, and why you chose the bombing over other options.

A: See enclosed documents (he's referring to letter below)

Q. Summate feelings and lessons learned re: experience with legal system, and particularly, SJ.

A. Stephen Jones was appointed (in his own mind), not as a defense attorney, but as an "independent prosecutor" representing Oklahoma state (just prior to "representing" me, he worked as an advisor to the chief law enforcement officer for the state of OK - Governor Frank Keating.) and its interests; and secondary, looking out for his own interests (namely fame and fortune).

Having this experience under my belt, I would recommend that a defendant never trust his/her lawyer, for you can neither count on the attorney-client privilege, nor the ethical integrity of a given attorney.

(I have also learned what "cronyism" means, in actual effect.)

Q: Regarding to comments by AG; Keating

A: Most of the insults are meritless and quite often absurd, so I don't pay them much attention. Hitler? Absurd. (Geraldo Rivera uses this same analogy, so Keating and Ashcroft are in good company!) Coward? This label would make Orwell proud - it is double think at its finest. Collateral Damage? As an American news junkie; a military man; and a Gulf War veteran, where do they think I learned that? (It sure as hell wasn't Osami Bin Laden!)

For all else, I would refer you to my enclosed paper "Hypocrisy", and to Ramzi Yousef's statement to the court just prior to his sentencing. I filter all labels and insults thusly.

Q: Lessons?

A: Many foreign nations and peoples hate Americans for the very reasons most Americans loathe me. Think about that.

There are most likely many lessons in my story. Americans have the choice to try to learn from me (which is why I cooperated with the authors of American Terrorist), or they can choose to remain ignorant, and suffer the consequences.
[/b]

Tim McVeigh made himself no different from the 9/11 terrorists, the unabomber, pedophiles and Hitler the second he decided to justify the avoidable murder of innocent children and bystanders in the name of his self-serving beliefs.

There were plenty of military targets that McVeigh could have directed his violence at if he was truly "at war" with the U.S. Government (or whatever he thought he was doing in his deraged and sick brain).

The fact the he CHOSE to blow up little children and innocent bystanders, and then ran like a little weasel makes him no better than the sick fucks that torture animals and molest little children - and then rationalize it afterwards in their twisted minds.

I hope he is raped every day for eternity in hell by some demon with a twenty-foot barbed penis.

McVeigh is an idiot, and not a follower of history apparntly.  Comparing the United States use of the atomic bomb in Japan to Iraq's use of chemical weapons on the Kurds and his own people is comparing apples to oranges.  At the time of the atomic bomb we were currently at war with Japan who attacked us first and we were in the planning stages of an invasion of Japan.  While the dropping of the bombs was horrific, it SAVED lives on BOTH sides.  More Japanese people would have died if we choose to invade instead of nuke, in the end it was the most humane way to end the war.  That is one of the lessons we learned.  If you want to wage war humanely, you do everything in your power to end it as soon as possible.  The longer you wage war, the more people are going to die.  
Saddam used chemical warfare on the Kurds and his own people because they disagree with him and he needs to keep them in line to avoid having them overthrow him.  Saddam killed over 100,000 Kurds in a two year period, simply because they don't agree with him.
[url]http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/02/uk_dossier_on_iraq/html/full_dossier.stm[/url]
McVeigh was an idiot and child murderer who tried to justify his personal "war" and anyone who believes that crap should be able to discuss it with him, in hell.

I agree completely.