Guide to the Upcoming Rebellion: Part 5:
McVeigh's Blunder
By: The Sceptic | 15June2001
Non IssueIn case you believed otherwise, the phrase "collateral damage" was not coined by Timothy McVeigh. It has been used by the military and politicians for years, and merely refers to damage that occurs unintentionally to people who (or objects that) are not the intended target. Presumably, the Federal agents responsible for the 1993 firestorm in Waco, Texas that turned 80 citizens into ash did not intend for the 25 children among them to be harmed. If this assumption is correct, those 25 young lives were "collateral damage".
But when McVeigh admitted to Buffalo News reporters "...if I had known there was an entire day care center, it might have given me pause to switch targets. That's a large amount of collateral damage", many were aghast at his choice of phraseology. Of course, Americans know that the lives of American children are worth a heck of a lot more than the lives of youngsters in Yugoslavia... as long as their parents don't happen to belong to a non-mainstream, minority religion in Waco, Texas, that is.
McVeigh's MotiveThe artificial, unjustifiable furor (at least, the media's furor) over McVeigh's use of the language was just one more non-issue that got between many American citizens and their ability to take a judicious look at McVeigh's motivations. Of course, it is difficult to look into the heart of a monster with anything that resembles good judgment. Can you stand a challenge?On April 26, 2001, Timothy McVeigh sent a letter to Fox News correspondent Rita Cosby, to explain what most of us already assumed about his motives for the bombing of the Murrah Federal Building. His primary reason 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."
Further, he explained that he waited two years for the government's "checks and balances" (the ones that American children are told about in school) to correct Federal abuse of power against citizens. Instead, of those responsible being punished: "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." So McVeigh decided to wage an undeclared war on the US Government. He claimed that he considered assassinating "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)", but opted to instead take the fight to the enemy by bombing a government building and the government employees within that building who represent that government. It should be obvious that the initial official investigation of Waco was deceitful. At best, John Danforth's investigation of Waco (and the initial investigation) in 2000 -- after McVeigh's retaliation in Oklahoma City -- ignored many of the facts, which inevitably led to his report's spurious conclusions. But what do we do with McVeigh's belief that US Federal agents -- and for not holding them responsible, the Federal government itself -- had abused power against citizens of the US? To what other conclusion might one come, who sees Feds get away with the murder of citizens? Might that not be considered a war against citizens?
Even if this were true, can we also assume that those working at the Murrah Federal building in Oklahoma City were guilty of sympathizing with the enemy? Perhaps, but they were no more guilty than are any of us who continue to fund that same murderous government with our tax dollars. In any case, the children -- the day care "collateral damage" -- killed in Oklahoma City were guilty of nothing. What McVeigh didn't understand, was that one cannot justifiably retaliate against the death of innocents by causing the death of more innocents. Another TimelineMcVeigh might have found a little of the justice he was seeking if he had instead bombed a gathering of FBI Hostage Rescue Team and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms agents at the annual Waco Murder Reunion and Long Pork Barbecue.
There is no way to know. News photographers were not permitted anywhere near the Branch Davidian Seventh-Day Adventist Church in Waco while that particular premeditated crime took place. For that matter, firemen were kept away too. On 11June2001, Timothy McVeigh paid for his crimes. To date, nobody who was actually responsible for Waco, Ruby Ridge or similar recent government-sponsored terrorist murders has been made to pay with the same coin. Does anybody happen to know where the aforementioned reunion and barbecue will be held this year? | |||||||||||||||||
To the right is the famous Pulitzer Prize-winning photograph taken 19Apr1995 of Fire Capt. Chris Fields and 1-year-old
Baylee Almon, who later died of her injuries. How would public sentiment have been different if there had been a similar
image of a child victim of the Federal murderers at Waco Texas? Not to ignore McVeigh's responsibility for it, but
would the incident in Oklahoma City have even happened?