Talk:Timothy McVeigh

"Terrorist"

I'm very disappointed to see that the term "terrorist" has found its way into this article. It's a term which is too ambiguous to be used to describe McVeigh. According to the definition of terrorist (and "homegrown terrorist"), many of the most powerful people in the U.S. government, past and present, qualify as terrorists. Please choose a different term to describe McVeigh. --Kimyohan (talk)

(talk) While terrorist is certainly a poor choice of word so is freedom fighter.Both are very loaded one way or the other. A more neutral term is needed, as he thought himself a revolutionary not a terrorist. He also did not target say a market place or a football game he attacked a goverment building. If this was a enemy nation it would be an act of war not terrorism. — Preceding undated comment added 12:38, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I think it should stay the way it is. It's neutral and still shows the views of the goverment and the majority. Removing the term from the first line will also reduce vandalism change it from terrorist to freedom fighter or related words. It is properly covered in the next line. --Youngdrake (talk) 14:00, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

He attacked a civilian government building. Even if he attacked a military installation, I think he would still count as an unlawful combatant because he was not wearing the uniform of a recognized combatant military force.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 04:24, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

That does not make it a terrorist action. Terrorist has more connotations than simply an unlawful combatant. That could be used for French WW2 partisans as well. The current writing is good enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.82.243.87 (talk) 16:51, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, thats the very definition of a terrorist action from the viewpoint of the targeted party. He might have perceived himself as some kind of revolutionary but that isnt relevant to the viewpoint of the country he attacked. Yes, the nazis most likely did perceive the french resistance fighters as terrorists too since they were the ones targeted by them, just like Mc Veigh targeted a US federal building. --84.160.243.7 (talk) 00:12, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with almost all of you and I believe the use of the word terrorist is only being used for political reasons much like its use when referring to the Weatherman Underground. This man was a mass murderer and not a terrorist and I will point out why. First off, we have to distinguish between terrorists and mass murderers since clearly not all mass murders are terrorist acts and, in theory, not all terrorist acts incorporate mass murder. While both acts may share similar similar characteristics, there are fundamental differences between terrorism and mass murder and they boil down to the motives, the victims, and the intended outcome.

Motives: a murderer's motives are to seek revenge, or, in their mind, justice, for a perceived wrongdoing done against themselves, or against others they care about, by the party they slaughter. A terrorist, on the other hand, commits an act purely to cause a reaction that favors their desired goals. The terrorist's desired reaction to the attack is thus essential for a terrorist attack and must be shaped by the attack. This is why the victims of terrorist attacks tend to have zero responsibility for the very things that the terrorists want to change or the parties the terrorists want to destroy.

Victims: A terrorist has little interest in launching an attack directly against the very party(s) they wish to influence. To put it another way, a terrorist's ideal victims are those who's suffering can maximize the terrorist's desired response and aren't necessarily the party with which the terrorist intends to disrupt the most. This is why terrorists target innocent civilians. For instance, a terrorist might murder aid workers or construction workers in order to put pressure on the countries from which those individuals are from rather than out of spite for the individuals or to instill terror in them. When it comes to a murderer's choice of victim(s), its always intended to be the party or parties which the murderer directly opposes and holds a grievance against. This is even the case, instance, when a murderer kills another individual for harming a family member, friend, or a community valued by the murderer. It would be wrong to characterize, for instance, a brother who killed the abusive spouse of his sister as a terrorist since the dead body belongs to the very party which the murderer is attacking and thus the act clearly isn't carried out to use emotion as a weapon since the final target is already dead.

Intended outcomes: A murderer wants revenge because of something they feel their target did that they couldn't tolerate. The outcome they desire is thus one where their act is justified in their mind as a means of punishing a guilty party that otherwise would've gotten away with something. A murderer may try to get others to sympathize with their actions especially when their actions are taken against a party that didn't directly do anything to them. A terrorist, on the other hand, doesn't attack targets that are guilty of any perceived wrongdoing(even if that is argued as justification). The outcome of the attack is to instead shape the reaction to the clearly unjustified attack in order to achieve the terrorist's real objective. Since the terrorist attack is intentionally against innocent parties, the reaction to that attack may be impaired by emotions such as fear or anger which can be used to the terrorist's benefit. Essentially, terrorists rely on using the fear and anger of others to their benefit.

Here are some example illustrating what I mean:
1) Daesh's very pubic terrorist attacks on civilians in 2014 were very likely intended cause public outrage in America and prompt another military occupation of Iraq. This could help the terrorists by giving them the opportunity to incite violence between American soldiers and either Iranians, Iraqis, or even Syrians and thus give Daesh a stronger position in Iraq and Syria. The civilians were clearly innocent and the grievance had by Daesh against Shiite governments and groups was far greater than any against Yazidis or other civilians.
2) The Columbine massacre was clearly a mass murder since the individuals involved held grievances against their victims, used fear mainly against their targets, and clearly didn't intend merely to kill a large number of people. Also, their shooting had no greater motive.
3) Adam Lanza was clearly a terrorist. His attack was against innocent civilians who clearly couldn't have wronged him even in his own mind. His anti-gun political views, the weapons he used, and the fact that his shooting occurred right after the 2012 election all point to an intent to achieve a political goal as the result of the emotional reaction to his actions. Clearly lawmakers understood this judging by the lackluster enthusiasm to take advantage of the event.
4) Anders Brevik is clearly a mass murderer and not a terrorist. This is due to the fact that his actions were directed against not only the family members of politicians he despised but also the next generation of politicians who would've otherwise entered politics if they weren't killed. While his attack was against easy targets, he didn't utilize the reaction to his attack to achieve his ends but rather the attack itself. His belief that the families he attacked were themselves guilty of attacking his nation also backs up the idea that his actions, while political in nature, were clearly acts of murder rather than terrorism.
5) The 9/11 terrorist attack was a terrorist attack likely even more so than often realized. The victims of the attack were clearly innocent civilians but its very likely that the attack suffered from far more miscalculations than most realize and thus backfired. When looking at Osama Bin Laden's life, its very plausible that his ambitions were far more typical than assumed. He very likely wanted to replace the usurp the Saudi monarchy and his actions reflect that. What was likely his first attempt during the Gulf war failed when the Monarchy didn't want his military assistance and his calls for them to be overthrown merely resulted in his exile. It is thus very likely that his terrorist attacks leading upto and including 9/11 were intended to put pressure on Saudi Arabia by America and thus allow an Iranian-style revolution. When you consider how even today many doubt the WTC could have been brought down by planes, its quite obvious that they likely didn't believe that would happen either and thus the attack was likely far more deadly than was planned and, with the last plane not hitting its target, seen as being far more provocative since the only targets assumed include the Capital and White House with all other potential targets ignored(CIA hq, State Department hq, etc). Had everything went as planned, its very likely like less than one-third as many people would've died and, without most deaths occuring durring the collapses when everyone was watching, the impact on the American people would've been nowhere near as great and could've instead resulted in pressure being put on Saudi Arabia instead of the more costly invasion of Afghanistan. This could've led to a revolution in Saudi Arabia putting Osama Bin Laden on the throne as his people already had a massive network of allies.

When it comes to Mcveigh, his attack was clearly not an act of terrorism. His target was the Federal Government which he believed was guilty of serious crime and his desire for his interpretation of justice clearly didn't benefit from collateral damage in the form of a day care. Like terrorists captured who were involved in the 9/11 attack plan who agreed with, and pushed, the narrative that it was intended to be worse, its far more likely that his partner in the attack told people what they wanted to hear about him wanting to kill kids. This attack had no means of utilizing public outrage and was targeted at the Federal Government at a time when it wasn't seen as a purely innocent organization(see Waco). He clearly targeted the very organization he had a grievance with and his actions clearly didn't rely on, or benefit from, the use of fear. It was just another Columbine massacre except with with a big bomb rather than guns and little bombs and the government as the target instead of jocks. 71.217.222.96 (talk) 05:27, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

WALL OF TEXT, Soapboxing, Forum, etc. - Administrators! Please "hat" the above anon IP post? Thank you. HammerFilmFan (talk) 20:32, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

The word terrorism should not be in the article. In fact, a fair-minded editor would call this man a dissident. Either way, labeling terms should be removed and avoided going forward.

2 days before the bombing?

How could that photo of him being led out of the courthouse have possibly been taken 2 days after the bombing? --Captain Infinity (talk) 20:36, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Special Forces

More info, in his own words, about what him getting selected for Special Forces training: http://www.nytimes.com/1998/07/01/us/excerpts-from-timothy-mcveigh-letter.html Yadojado (talk) 22:15, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Gore Vidal

Another source: Gore Vidal on his three year correspondence with McVeigh: http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2001/09/mcveigh200109 Yadojado (talk) 22:58, 5 October 2015 (UTC)