For now, I choose to keep my opinion about the McVeigh ordeal to myself, but to make this interesting, here is an opinion I found on the net that gives a very different perspective. Any thoughts on this?
-----------------------------------------
The Morality of Survival
The biggest thing in the news now is the imminent killing of the young
soldier Timothy McVeigh by the Bush government. Even though I've never
met or corresponded with Timothy, I've had dozens of reporters calling
me for interviews in connection with the killing, because he read one of
my novels, The Turner Diaries. The reporters seem almost gleeful. One of
those awful, heterosexual White male gun nuts who doesn't follow the
party line is to be killed, and isn't it wonderful! The columnists and
editorialists like to use words such as "evil" and "monster" in their
references to McVeigh. One can imagine them all dancing the hora with
their Jewish bosses as the hour of the killing approaches and then
cheering in unison as the poison flows into his veins.
Why this enormous hatred for Timothy? They say it is because he killed
168 people. I say it is because he refuses to say that he is sorry: he
refuses to whine and make excuses and beg for his life, like they would
have done. I say that it is because he did what he did for an impersonal
reason, for an ideal, and ideals make them uncomfortable. I say that it
is because he has acted as a man of principle should act and is willing
to face the consequences for his actions, and that really goes against
the grain in this age of democracy and hypocrisy and feminism and
endless talk, with people never meaning what they say.
Someone like Bill Clinton, who orders the bombing of Belgrade and kills
thousands of civilians in order to divert attention from his domestic
problems, is forgiven immediately by the media bloodhounds because Bill
Clinton is not a man of principle. Bill Clinton is not a threat to the
rotten system which feeds the bloodhounds. They can understand and
empathize with a mass murderer like Bill Clinton, but not with a soldier
like Timothy McVeigh.
If the media people really believed that everyone who kills lots of
other people is "evil" or a "monster," they should have had a field day
when Ariel Sharon became the head Jew in Israel recently. Sharon is the
Jew who, as Israeli defense minister, set up and supervised the massacre
of some 3,000 Palestinian civilians -- mostly women, children, and old
men -- in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps in 1982. Has any
journalist, the editorial writer for any major newspaper or magazine,
had anything at all to say about that recently?
You know, I'm not trying to justify the killing of civilians. I'm just
trying to explore the fundamental crookedness of the mass media in
dealing with the subject of killing. Here's another example: that's the
current media hullabaloo about the killing of 20 or so Vietnamese
civilians in 1969 by a Navy SEAL team commanded by Lieutenant Robert
Kerrey, who later was governor of Nebraska, then a U.S. Senator, and
then a presidential candidate in 1992.
In 1969 a Vietnamese family had their throats cut to keep them from
raising an alarm during Kerrey's raid in the Mekong Delta, and then 15
or 20 other civilians were shot. The raid had failed to achieve its
purpose of assassinating a Viet Cong official, but Kerrey received a
Bronze Star anyway. Now, amid a dispute about whether the Vietnamese
civilians who were killed had simply been in the way during a fire fight
or Kerrey had ordered them to be rounded up and shot, there is a great
deal of hand-wringing and soul-searching going on. The media really have
made a circus out of the affair. One could almost believe that the folks
in the media are horrified by the killing of civilians. But really, they
aren't.
When it serves their propaganda purposes they will act like
humanitarians and make a big fuss about killing civilians. They will act
as if they believe it to be a terribly reprehensible thing for which the
perpetrators should be punished. They went through that act all during
the Vietnam war. Their attitude was that White Americans were
baby-killers wreaking havoc among little Brown people in Vietnam for no
good reason. The media certainly sympathized with the demonstrators who
carried Viet Cong flags in Washington during the time that the Viet Cong
were killing American servicemen in Vietnam at the rate of 100 a day.
And now they are making a big fuss about whether Kerrey and his fellow
SEALs deliberately killed those 20 or so Vietnamese civilians 32 years
ago or not, just as they are implying that Timothy McVeigh also is a
monster who deliberately murdered the children in the day-care center in
the Oklahoma City Federal Building. But, as I already said, no one in
the controlled media has condemned Clinton for ordering the bombing of
Belgrade or the strafing of refugee columns in Kosovo.
Speaking of strafing, at the end of the Second World War U.S. fighter
pilots considered it a great sport to shoot civilians along the roads
and highways of Germany. Whether it was a refugee column fleeing the
invading Red Army or simply a German farm wife and her children walking
along a country road, American pilots would shoot them. It was
considered a sport. Everybody knew about it, but no one ever was
prosecuted as a war criminal because of it. The media never expressed
disapproval -- and in fact, it was because the media tacitly approved of
such atrocities and implicitly encouraged them with their anti-German
hate propaganda that pilots felt it was acceptable behavior. Quite a
difference from the party line taken by the media in the Vietnam war!
Did American pilots ever do any soul-searching or hand-wringing about
these casual acts of murder, the way Robert Kerrey is now about his 1969
raid on a Mekong Delta village? If so, I haven't heard about it. What
about the far more murderous carpet-bombing of German cities during the
war? These bombing raids were designed to kill as many German civilians
as possible. Since the war I have spoken with two or three American
bomber pilots who told me that they realize now that they were fighting
on the wrong side during the war, and they bitterly regret having
participated in the mass murder of Germans for the benefit of the Jews.
I am sure that most American bomber pilots never have felt a twinge of
guilt for what they did during the war, however, because most of them
were lemmings. Lemmings do not have an internal compass to tell them
what is right and wrong. As long as the media tell them that they did
the right thing in bombing German cities, they feel no guilt. It is the
ambiguous attitude of the media toward the Vietnam war that causes all
of the anguish Robert Kerrey feels about his actions in 1969.
There are many people who would excuse both the American pilots who
carpet-bombed German cities and strafed German refugee columns and
American soldiers such as Kerrey who killed Vietnamese civilians, simply
because all of these things were acts of war, and in a war anything is
permitted. Murdered civilians are simply "collateral damage." Certainly
most of the controlled mass media would go along with that view so far
as the murder of German civilians is concerned, and as I said, their
view of the Vietnam war is at least ambiguous.
What about Timothy McVeigh? No one can argue seriously that he bombed
the Federal building in Oklahoma City because he wanted to kill or
terrorize civilians. Neither terrorism nor killing civilians was his
goal. He bombed the Federal building to punish the Federal government
for its murderous behavior in burning the Branch Davidian church in
Waco, Texas, two years earlier. He wanted to send the government a
message that its behavior would not be tolerated. And part of that
message would be the killing of the government's secret police agents --
FBI and ATF agents -- who worked in the building. The fact that his bomb
would kill not only secret police agents but also civilians, including
the 19 children in the day-care center, was regrettable but unavoidable:
collateral damage. Timothy was at war against the government, and in a
war civilians are killed even when they are not deliberate targets, as
they were in America's war against Germany. But of course, none of
America's controlled media accept that view of the matter. Timothy is
"evil"; Timothy is a "monster." The American pilots who strafed German
refugee columns were just soldiers doing their job.
Is this one-sided view of things based on naivete? It's certainly not
based on patriotism. The media proved during the Vietnam war that they
have no pro-American bias based on patriotism. And it's not based on
naivete either. It's based on a conscious and deliberate intent to
deceive.
I'll give you an example. Four years ago, in my broadcast of May 24,
1997, I told you about a terrible atrocity which occurred in Italy
toward the end of the Second World War. In May 1944 Allied forces bombed
and shelled the sixth-century abbey of Monte Cassino to rubble, forcing
the German defenders there to withdraw. Among the Allied troops was a
division of Moroccan soldiers. Even then the Allies wanted to have
"diversity" among their forces in order to show the world that they
believed in racial equality.
Well, the Moroccans weren't much as fighters, but they were pretty good
at cutting the throats of prisoners after the fighting was over. And
they also excelled at raping civilians -- and prisoners too,
occasionally, buggery being an established tradition among them. The
night after the Germans had withdrawn, the Moroccans -- 12,000 of them
-- left their camp and swarmed over the mountain villages around Monte
Cassino. They raped every village woman and girl they could get their
hands on, an estimated 3,000 women, ranging in age from 11 years to 86
years old. They murdered 800 village men who tried to protect their
women. They abused some of the women so badly that more than 100 of them
died. They selected the prettiest girls for gang-raping, with long lines
of dark-skinned Moroccans waiting their turn in front of each one, while
other Moroccans held the victims down. And they raped some of the young
men as well.
Now, is this the sort of thing that our controlled media regard as
"collateral damage," which must be accepted as inevitable in time of
war? No, the media bosses understood that not even the brainwashed
American public would be happy with that explanation, so they simply
suppressed the news, just as they suppressed the news of the massacre of
Whites by Blacks in Wichita, Kansas, last December. Look in the standard
chronologies of the Second World War, and you will find no mention of
the rape of the women of Monte Cassino. Even the accounts prepared by
the U.S. War Department -- accounts which detail the battle for Monte
Cassino -- have excised any reference to what the Moroccan soldiers did
to the villagers there after the battle. Now, that's not naivete; that's
crookedness. That's deliberate intent to deceive.
Here's another example, which I've also talked about in earlier
broadcasts: that's the mass murder of the Polish military, professional,
and intellectual elite by the Soviet secret police in April 1940: some
25,000 Polish leaders altogether, the cream of the Polish nation. The
Soviet secret police had rounded up the Polish writers and professors
and military officers immediately after the Soviet invasion of Poland in
September 1939. All of these Polish leaders, seen by the communists as a
potential threat to the Soviet rule of Poland, were transported to
Russia and herded into concentration camps. Then a few months later they
were taken to execution pits, methodically murdered, and covered up in
mass graves.
Almost immediately rumors of this enormous atrocity reached the West,
when the prisoners no longer answered mail from their relatives. The
controlled media in the West suppressed the rumors. The relatives of the
media bosses were riding high as communist commissars in the Soviet
Union, and the Poles were the traditional enemies of the Jews. The media
bosses didn't care what happened to the Polish leaders, and they didn't
want to say anything bad about their brethren in the Soviet Union.
Then, in June 1941, the German Army invaded Russia, determined to stamp
out communism and end the Soviet-Jewish threat to Europe. Two years
later, in 1943, after pushing deep into Russia, the Germans stumbled
across a series of mass graves near the Russian village of Katyn. They
found the corpses of more than 4,000 of the 25,000 Polish leaders who
had been arrested by the Soviet secret police in 1939 and had not been
heard from since April 1940. The Germans called in the International Red
Cross and forensic experts from several neutral nations and also brought
in British, French, and Polish officers from German POW camps to view
the evidence. And that evidence was overwhelming. The communists had
deliberately murdered the leadership stratum of the Polish nation in
order to make the Poles easier to rule. The observers reported back to
their own countries what they had seen -- and the media not only
suppressed the reports but blamed the genocide on the Germans instead of
on the communists and Jews.
So what's the point of all this? Do I expect the controlled mass media
to change their ways? Am I advocating that they treat all atrocities in
an evenhanded way? Do I expect them to regard Timothy McVeigh as a
prisoner of war rather than as a monster and a terrorist?
No, of course not. The people who control the mass media are behaving in
a perfectly sensible way. Evenhandedness is a ridiculous concept to
them. In their view, an atrocity is something your enemies do. Whatever
the people on your side do is justifiable. During the Second World War
the Germans were their enemies, and the Americans were on their side,
and so whatever the Americans did to the Germans was justifiable or, at
worst, "collateral damage." Whenever the Germans played rough, however,
it was an atrocity, a war crime.
The media bosses realized, of course, that many Americans would not
accept such a simplistic view, and so they suppressed news of atrocities
committed by their allies -- by the Moroccans and by the Red Army, for
example -- and they exaggerated any rough tactics by the Germans, even
inventing atrocities where none had been committed.
During the Vietnam war, a generation after they had beaten the Germans,
the media bosses had as their primary motive the final destruction of
the old America, the Gentile America, with its traditions and morals and
exclusiveness. They needed to destroy America's self-confidence, confuse
its sense of identity, break down its remaining resistance to domination
by the media masters. So they treated the Vietnam war with ambiguity.
The Americans no longer were the "good guys," as they had been portrayed
during the Second World War. Any killing of Vietnamese civilians by
Americans was not treated as "collateral damage," but as a war crime.
And now, with the government totally under their control, anyone who is
against the government is their enemy. So far as the media bosses are
concerned, the government can burn as many Branch Davidian churches as
it wants. That's just "collateral damage" in the government's campaign
to keep the population intimidated. And anyone who strikes back at the
government is a "monster," a "terrorist."
As I said, all of that is perfectly sensible. They know who they are and
where their interests lie. They understand the stakes in this struggle
for mastery of the planet. They understand that we are engaged in a
total war, and they are determined to win. They are rational people.
They do whatever is advantageous for them.
And, incidentally, we should understand that however tactically wrong
the bombing of the Federal building in Oklahoma City may have been, and
however regrettable the killing of innocent civilians in that bombing,
Timothy McVeigh is no monster. He is a soldier, and what he did was
based on principle. He justified his actions on the same basis that
soldiers always do: he was at war against a government that is at war
against his people.
I know that most Americans prefer not to think about that. Most
Americans don't want to choose sides in this war. Most just want to
pretend that there is no war and get on with their lives, and it's
easier to follow the lead of the media and regard Timothy McVeigh as a
monster than as a soldier. But there is a war, and in this war the rule
is: Whatever is good for our people is good, and whatever harms our
people is evil. That is the morality of survival.
It is too bad about the innocent civilians who died in Oklahoma City. It
is too bad about the Polish intellectuals and officers who were murdered
by the Soviet secret police. It is too bad about the German civilians
who were carpet-bombed by American fliers. It is too bad about the many,
many more innocent civilians who will die in the years ahead. It all
could have been avoided if we had gotten our thinking straightened out
earlier.
