From: nobody@nsm.htp.org
Date: Thu, 28 May 1998 20:08:12 -0700 (PDT)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Timmy Mc Veigh
Message-ID: <19980529030659.16949.qmail@nsm.htp.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Text of essay said written by Timothy McVeigh - something
	to think about.

May 28, 1998
Web posted at: 10:10 p.m. EDT (0210 GMT)

(AP) -- The June 1998 issue of Media Bypass Magazine includes this
essay it says was written 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 its
"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 photos 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 against him and his nation, whey 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 the 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."

This leads me to a final, and unspoken, moral hypocrisy regarding
the use of weapons of mass destruction.

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 as 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
ill, it teaches the whole people by its example."

Sincerely,

Timothy J. McVeigh