Why did Timothy McVeigh hate us? What did Timothy McVeigh want? He spoke English and had plentty of time to tell us. I don't have any idea. Do you? Seems he was just disgruntled, sort of mad at the government, maybe for the Waco fiasco. I could never discern any kind of coherent demand out of the guy.

It seems to me that some people are just angry for whatever reason. Maybe they are born that way, or maybe something wounded them at some point. They latch onto something or someone to be angry at, to blame, and they nurse that anger. Actually, lots and lots of people do this. We probably all nurse some irrational anger from time to time. Most people just get over it or, at worst, simmer in their own foul stew. But a broken few, call them psychopaths or sociopaths if you want, act it out and kill someone. A smaller few act on some self-agrandizing fantasy and make huge gestures of obscene violence.

The question, "Why did Timothy McVeigh hate us?" (or the government, if you want to be picky), doesn't offer much help for avoiding furture McVeighs. What useful thing can we learn from his motivations? There are practical lessons from the attack itself, to build government buildings to anticipate an attack so that they are more bomb resistant, say, or paying more attention to large purchases of fuel and fertilizer. But what useful thing can we glean from McVeigh's motivations? Nothing that I can see. I'd be curious if anyone else has any ideas about how we could behave differently so as not to "set off" future McVeighs?

I suspect that we will have to live with terrorisim from all quarters for a very long time, because it is more of a pernicious meme of it's own than the product of any particular social or political factor we can work on. Sure, it's a meme that exists more symbiotically with some hateful ideas than with others, it's not independent of ideology, but I'm afraid that no creed will ever claim a monopoly on this meme. It's a meme we are seeing now, at this point in history, because it is enabled by wealth and technology which make the instruments of large scale destruction available to even the barely-employed. For much of history, to terrorize you had to have a band of supporters...a band of thugs, a tribe,a city-state, because that was the only way for an individual to amplify their power sufficiently to terrorize more than a few people. There are only so many people you can hurt with your bare fists, and one man, no matter how strong, can't take on the crowd at a baseball stadium. No more, though. Now any broken person can take on a baseball stadium. Any broken person in almost any place on the globe can now manage to find and afford a firearm if they really want, and the globe is awash in explosives and electornics for making bombs. We live in an age that is enabling for anyone who wants to take on a crowd, who wants to make a big scene. All the moreso given that another technology, media, makes the splash an individual can make all that much bigger, since it will echo around the world. Communications further reinforce the dangerous meme by linking each crazy person with every other crazy person out there.

I don't highlight technology and wealth to demonize technology, nor do I mention media to say that The Media is to blame. Rather, I mention it as a matter of fact, a bit like saying that the invention of air travel has the unfortunate side effect that now we have such a thing as the jumbo-jet plane crash that kills 350 at a time. There were no great horse or pedestrian crashes in Roman times, so this is a new illness we have to deal with. It's a small price to pay, because of course there were a thousand other ills in Roman time. Plane travel is worth it, but it brings novel costs along with it's new benefits. I think, to a substantial degree, terrorism is one of the novel costs of the modern world. One, I hasten to add, that we should work hard to minimize, but one that will be impossible to eradicate.

Kolmogorov

I seem to remember that he complained that we didn't have universal health insurance.

He was also concerned that we weren't doing enough about global warming.

Good post Kolmo

Excellent post. I hate to say it, but I think that the influence of media and the internet goes beyond amplifying a "speaker's" actions and connecting him with other broken people. Rather, I suspect that a larger awareness of one's own country/government and of the outside world, especially when warped by a particular selective perception of same, provides a greater motivation for acts of terrorism than existed previously. It was harder for people like McVeigh to imagine themselves crusaders against grand evil forces back when their only encounter with those forces was in the form of the local sheriff. But now an unbalanced person can take what would otherwise have been a simple neighborhood dispute or a tendency to be the town troublemaker, and instead connect it (even if only by tenuous mental threads) to a larger context and cause. And I think it's only when that element is added that even the crazy people begin to think that mass killings might be a productive idea.

A question I would ask of you: do you see a difference between the acts of isolated loners like McVeigh, and the same tactics as adopted by larger movements (e.g. radical Islamists)? Do you think this is still an inevitability of technological progress, "a new illness we have to deal with?" I have my own ideas on this, but I'd be interested to hear your thoughts.

A question I would ask of you: do you see a difference between the acts of isolated loners like McVeigh, and the same tactics as adopted by larger movements (e.g. radical Islamists)?

I know you weren't asking me, but I was going to bring this up before I read your reply. I personally think there is a difference. Kolmogorov made the excellent point that individuals can cause great damage, something that's important to consider when determining how or whether to "wage war" on those individuals. Clearly you're never going to stop extremism completely and somebody will always hate America.

BUT, Reza Azlan's article points out that Al Qaeda is waging a propaganda war against us and we're playing into it. The scary part about Al Qaeda is that they're organized and can recruit new members for extremism (just like the radical Christian and militia groups McVeigh was involved in) on a global scale. They also have the money and the means to make things happen. Splitting the world into good and evil simply gives them more power and increases their recruiting power and income. Thus, the strategy to respond to organized groups like Al Qaeda are to reduce their influence and counter their anti-American message. Knowing what their message is is obviously important for this strategy.

I'd also like to point out that most countries (not just "them") aren't generally fond of the US's approach to world affairs at this point. While not bowing to the whims of terrorists, a little humility in our foreign policy may do us some good in countering their message.

about things such as he wanted universal health insurance and was upset about global warming. McVeigh was trained by our military in the field of drastic solutions to problems, tempered by a violent miltia philosophy and very pissed off about Ruby Ridge. What he did was heinous but if Randy Weaver's family hadn't been murdered by our government there may not have been any Oaklahoma City bombing. There are actually similarities to OBL's profile. It is amazing that our conventional wisdom seems to be thet we can kill people with impunity and there will never be any blowback, unless it is our doing, and then when it happens to us it is "unfathomable". Sincerely, Ward Churchill.

Ibrahim making up a manifesto for Al Quaida says it all...so they can't even write their own "mein kamph" for God's sake, they are so pathetic and so nothing!

What a farce!! I have never in my entire life witnessed such a scum sucking, bottom feeding set of outright in your face lies as all this.

Well said Kolmo.

I would add that it is human nature (genetics and evolution driven) for male physical aggression. Generally speaking, we (men) are programmed with a strong, sub-consciuos desire to hunt, kill and protect for the sake of food resources, territory and family/clan. Just think to all the news and personal experiences you've had to find truth in this - all fights, wars, rapes, robberies, etc. are, generally, committed by and/or instigated by men. Men with high and variable fluctuating levels of testosterone and watch it get even worse - e.g. roid-using wrestler who randomly killed his family.

This served us well 'back in the day' of living in caves/huts and living off the land, but in the modern agrarian society, there is no inherent need for males to hunt and kill any more. There is no regular, routine outlet for the evolved aggressive tendencies. Without an outlet for this aggression, it seeths under the surface and manifests itself by escalating 'hate' of almost any societal grievance from an intellectual perception to a physical threat and they will use the tools/weapons at their disposal to attack the grievance.

Unfortunately, evolution can't work on the same timescale as human society to get rid of these aggressive tendencies, someday it will catch up as murderers, rapists, etc. are removed from civil society (life in prison) before they have children. Additionally, the 'fattening' of the population will help amerliorate the pent-up frustration as fat absorbs hormones. But this will only moderate behaviour, not genetics, so as soon as society slims down to normal size/weight and their children will have the same tendencies.

We try, as parents, to raise our children to be respectful of others and to suppress their aggression, but on a physiological level, we are fighting a losing battle. We are basically trying to train the brain to control automatic physiological systems, which unless you are into yoga, etc., is very difficult to do. I mean we 'punish' children acting out physically (hitting, biting, kicking, pushing, etc.) to try and reinforce to their brain's that this is unacceptable, and over time and with consistent training we can do pretty good.

But it is always there, the underlying machinery never goes away (until testosterone levels drop with age) and with sometimes very slight provocation, the most mild-mannered guy's control over an emotional, physical response is weakened and, to quote Rummy, 'stuff happens'.

All of the above, in terms of trying to control, train, mitigate male aggressiveness is based on my experiences as an American in the U.S.. Realistically, there are 5.8 Billion other people around the world, the vast majority of which live in deplorable, near 'back-in-the-day' conditions, where this aggressiveness is still a requirement for simple day-to-day survival.

Even in the U.S., we can't control it very well. I think every single boy/man in America understands that if you commit rape, assault or murder you will (98% chance) get caught and go to prison, potentially for life or even be executed (i live in Texas, it's what we do). Yet this does not act as a deterrent, which can be explained by the fact that, again, this is an underlying physiological system that will always be there no matter how much intellectual control we think we have over it.

What does all this mean? Well, it means that there will always be people out there (mostly men) who will feel an overwhelming need to relieve their super-aggression, but have no real outlet and so, if they have the resources, will try to cause harm to others. In most cases, it will be limited to beating family members or getting into physical fights. But for some, this isn't enough or isn't possible, so they see terrorist acts on T.V. and it appeals to them on a base-level. They will create some bogus rationale for it, like OBL's laundry-list of anti-American grievances or McVeigh's list of reasons for hating the Federal government, and plan/plot/execute some terrorist act.

For others, like the Palestinians and Iraqis, terrorist acts are due to asymmetric warfare. They have been provoked and the natural response to defend territory can only express itself with the tools at hand. In Palestine (G&WB), the conditions are extremely dire and throwing stones at Israeli tanks can only do so much to resolve it, so they resort to terrorist bombings, a tool/tactic that does inflict damage to the enemy. Same in Iraq, except on steroids. Through Rummy's bungling and Cheney's denial of proper planning meant we actually armed the populace with Iraqi Army supplies left unguarded - then we disbanded the army's personnel (mostly sunni) with no pay and no jobs and were surprised when these jobless, disgruntled, trained men found out who stole all the armaments and started to use them against the U.S. troops.

Anyway, bottom line is that terrorism as a tactic will be around forever.

Our only response is to attempt to as Roosevelt (i think) 'tread lightly' and try to minimize or marginalize the 'rationales' that these terrorist leaders use as rationales.

But tracking down those few over-aggressive leaders who are able to coordinate and motivate others like them, aka OBL, and arresting/prosecuting them is the only response we have. The more we 'attack' them and cause indiscriminant collateral damage, the more we strengthen their propaganda rationale and thus recruiting.

oh4real

I agree that men may be reaching obsolescence. With machinery to do the heavy lifting (cf. scene from Alien) there is no need for big strong males any more. Soon, we will have perfected the technology for parthenogenetic reproduction in humans. I presume at that point we'll be phased out. Kolmogorov

I think you are exactly right about media giving people a more zoomed out perspective of the world. Now that you mention it, I rather think that is probably the larger effect than voice amplification and villian networking. It's only through media that someone in Pakistan can even perceive the existence of the US, for example, much less frame the idea that they need to oppose us somehow. It is only through a globe spanning media that someone in Singapore can come to identify with the plight of someone in Palestine and form a sense of anger about it. It is only through media that you become aware of insults to your local way of life and world view. This is what bugs my fundamentalist relatives so much here. Sure, their own neighborhood is full of people who share their values, but on TV they see their values flaunted constantly.

Regarding your question of whether I see a difference between loners and larger movements: I'm not sure what you're getting at, but I'll make a few comments nonetheless.

I suppose I'd agree somewhat with the idea that there is more chance of waging an ideological battle with a movement than with a loner. It's hardly worth asking what a loner wants, because it is a sort of singular event. It might be worth asking what a group wants. Sometimes this can be very clear. I think the IRA was pretty clear in their desires, and I don't have any great sense of mystery what the PLO wanted either. Ditto the Tamil Tigers. I certainly wouldn't want to say that you shouldn't look into the motives and demands of any particular group. I also think it's important to hold out the possibility that their grievances may be valid, even if their tactics are vile. I have a lot of sympathy for the grievances the IRA and PLO, for example, and in those cases I think it's foolish and unproductive not to engage those issues.

Al Queda strikes me as having more in common with the loner, dispite being an orginization, than it has in common with the three very political groups mentioned above. Their motivations seem more diffuse. I'd say Al Queda is a model of a technology-enabled group, a group that wouldn't exist or have anything to do if not for technology. Their goals are just too vague. The three mentioned above might exist, and resist the relevant authorities, whether or not terrorism was available as a tactic.

I think it'd be hard to make any clear cut categories here, but I think there is clearly a continuum between groups with a clear political agenda who turn to terrorism as merely one of a host of tactics, and more diffuse groups and individuals who are more or less acting out a violent fantasy of some sort. In think in a less technological era, we'd still have the political groups, though they might be easier to suppress, and the individuals and diffuse groups would just be local cranks who end up killing someone and being disposed of in obscurity for that singular crime. On the one end, it is worth the effort to try to understand the political motivations and, maybe in some cases, to address these underlying issues. On the other, it is like trying to understand the motives behind a bar brawl. So perhaps I overstated my own views a bit in the original post. I don't think that all terrorism is violence whose motives are so obscure to be beyond analysis or amelioration. Rather, I think technology has enabled even people with muddled motives to achieve a level of violence whose magnitude is way out of proportion to the coherence of their demands. Kolmogorov

I'd agree that we are reckless about blowback. I think people are very naive about other people and their likely reactions to things we do. Maybe that could be filed under, "behaving decently". If McVeigh was angry about something, maybe it wasn't a particular political position so much, as a sense of anger at perceived violations of decency. There are enough axes to grind in the world that I am doubtful that we can head them all off with better behavior on our part, but I think it's also foolish to swagger around with, as you say, impunity.

I think the conventional wisdom that we can do so arises from the fact that for so long the blowback has been so minimal. Consider the Native Americans. They resisted here and there, but the cost to the expanding US was minimal and in the end they were pushed to near extinction. We acted with impunity and there was minimal blowback. I think technology has changed that equation quite a lot. Now the magnitude of possible blowback is much greater, and you don't even have to be engaging a whole continent of people to feel it. Just one angry person can do a lot of harm now. So it is probably true that we have to pay more attention now to the possible blowback of our actions, as a practical matter, to say nothing of the morality of behaving decently, than we did in the past. The margin for bad behavior on our part has shrinked if we don't want to feel the bite of it.

Kolmogorov

If the phenomenon is really reducible to men and their out-of-control testosterone then several questions remain:

1. Why do men like McVeigh waste time coming up with their "bogus rationale" at all? Does testosterone chemically require some sort of formalized casus belli as a catalyst? How does the presence of a rationale affect the reactive properties of a hormone?

2. When women with the same bogus rationale as male terrorists do not commit acts of terror, how has the rationale interacted chemically with estrogen to influence their behavior differently? Does it drive women to entice men to go do the violence, instead of doing it themselves?

3. Are those acts of violence commited by women explained by an estrogen imbalance, or perhaps by the un-bogus rationale that some man has either earned, instigated, or otherwise brought about the violence when a woman commits it?

4. Is the reaction between rationales and sex hormones at all influenced by the fact that boys are made of snips and snails, while girls are made of everything nice?

These questions can only be answered by future researchers in the field of ideochemistry, but one thing is clear: men are dangerous, and not to be trusted.

Our arrogance is just unbounded.

We invade Iraq, slaughter a million Iraqis directly, occupy them, make possibly 2.5 million of them refugees, and you all have the unmitigated gall to claim that Muslims are like Hitler?

And its Muslims you are talking about, because we all know Al Quaida is NOTHIng, not formidable at all.

If Lon Horiuchi, the FBI sniper who killed Vicki Weaver, had been charged with manslaughter, and the government hadn't whitewashed the Waco investigation, OKC likely never would have happened. Instead, Horiuchi was promoted to a top instructors position at Quantico, and the government bulldozed the Waco site and refused to allow an independent investigation. They never produced any evidence of the supposed stockpiles of fully automatic machine guns, grenades, and other illegal weapons that they claimed the Davidians had, and what the primary justifucation for the no knock warrant. No one was ever fired for Waco, and Larry Potts and Janet Reno most certainly should have been.

That doesnt justify the killing of 180+ people by McVeigh, but it merely traces the "trigger" that set him off.