The Meaning of Timothy McVeigh

[John Cole]

Here's a link to Gore Vidal's essay that I read a few days ago in Best American Essays 2002. As usual, Vidal writes with vigor, but this is a rather strange piece, one in which Vidal attempts to exonerate--it seems--McVeigh for the bombing by suggesting he either didn't do it, didn't act alone, or was somehow justified.

Equally intriguing, I think, are Vidal's assertions about Louis Freeh, Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas and their membership in Opus Dei, a rather secretive organization within the Catholic Church. You might also note that spy Robert Hannsen was also a member of this group.

http://www.geocities.com/gorevidal3000/tim.htm

[brad]

no one believes me anyway and when i post supporting links they just say well it doesnt matter anyway.

so i suggest searching google for the following.

Louis Jolyon ("Jolly") West, dr frederick whitehurst, general benton parton, republican guard (search for iraqis brought here after gulf war) , (something about how vidoe tape of building was classified national security and not allowed into evidence at his trial), seismograph

also mabye search for documented reports of how batf were blowing up truck bombs in arizona desert before oklahoma city bombing.

also fact that batf fbi agents in builing none were there that day and stuff like that.

[MMMMMM]

I wish it were a bit shorter or in summary form so I wouldn't have to go back and reread it.

Interesting.

I think McVeigh's rationalizations for his actions display a common thread with the thought processes of some others who participate in terroristic acts:

1) a vast oversimplification of complex scenarios,

2) drawing equivalences between events which are similar in some aspects but fundamentally and importantly different in others,

3) a willingness to violently attack a government which is seen as flawed, rather than attempting to work within a legal and/or media framework to call attention to the grievances and to thus seek remedy,

4) a dismissal of the collateral damage inflicted, on the grounds that the the object of attack itself also inflicts collateral damage,

5) a seeming blind spot to the overall pragmatic picture: if our government is seriously flawed or wrong in some ways, but many other governments are far worse, with what exactly would our government or Constitution be replaced should it be overthrown? I suspect that such questions don't even occur to those like McVeigh, and that the answer to this question would probably be: a worse form of government. This is not to say we should turn a blind eye to any potential dangers to our Constitution, but rather that cool heads are an asset and hot heads are a significant danger and liability. I suspect that McVeigh, while appearing rather calm and collected in demeanor and action, was actually hotheaded internally and/or incapable of analyzing complex scenarios in great depth. If so, and if my suspicions about this are correct, it fits in with what I suspect is a major culprit in most acts of ideologically motivated violence: not thinking clearly or deeply enough, and acting without sufficient information.

As for the conspiracy theories, I would like to see more information and hard facts rather than an assortment of details which merely suggest a certain theory. Of course, one has to start somewhere. One problem which develops in such scenatrios is that a theory is propounded, and people then start selectively looking for information to support the theory. If extremely "dammning" information is uncovered, that's one thing, but if more merely "suggestive" information is found, then it may just support the process of further theorizing--perhaps progresively more fantastically. Here statistical analysis by someone like Mason would be quite helpful;-) It would be even more helpful in an overall sense if everyone were required to learn statistics and logic in our school systems, starting at the earliest ages possible. Seriously, a Vulcan education would probably be far superior to what we (or the world) have in place right now. Star Trek may have been ahead of its time in more ways than guessed at.

I saw the JFK movie by Oliver Stone and object to what I intuitively felt was a suggestive slant in the portrayal of information.

[brad]

house select commitee on assassinations (church comittee i think) concluded oswald did not act alone and there was a conspiracy, right?

[MMMMMM]

Even if there was a conspiracy, that does not mean it was necessarily a U.S. Gov't. consiracy--my guess would be that it would have been more likely primarily a U.S.S.R./Mafia conspiracy, since those two groups probably had more reason for wishing JFK dead. If the movie portrayed it as a likely U.S. Gov't conspiracy, I would object to that because I do not recall adequate weight being given to the U.S.S.R and/or Mafia conspiracy theories. Although I have not studied this case in depth and only saw the movie once, the movie struck me as being suggestive and somewhat unbalanced in approach. Maybe it was a good movie but poor journalism.