Stop Comparing McVeigh To Bin Laden
Robert Spencer has an excellent piece on Front Page about something that's bugged the hell out of me for the longest time -- people who, upon hearing about Islamist acts of terrorism, throw out, "Well, Christians are terrorists, too!" and bring up Timothy McVeigh.
Unlike McVeigh, bin Laden isn't some deviant, going against what his religion commands. Quite the contrary -- he's following right along with the commands of Islam, and the Quran, a book that Muslims are supposed to take literally. Spencer writes:
All the orthodox sects and schools of Islamic jurisprudence teach that the Islamic community has the responsibility to wage war against unbelievers and subjugate them under the rule of Islamic law. All four principal schools of Sunni Muslim jurisprudence agree on the importance of jihad warfare against non-Muslims. Ibn Abi Zayd al-Qayrawani (d. 996), a Maliki jurist, declared: "Jihad is a precept of Divine institution. Its performance by certain individuals may dispense others from it. We Malikis maintain that it is preferable not to begin hostilities with the enemy before having invited the latter to embrace the religion of Allah except where the enemy attacks first. They have the alternative of either converting to Islam or paying the poll tax (jizya), short of which war will be declared against them."Ibn Taymiyya (d. 1328), a Hanbali jurist who is a favorite of Osama bin Laden and other modern-day jihadists, agreed: "Since lawful warfare is essentially jihad and since its aim is that the religion is God's entirely and God's word is uppermost, therefore according to all Muslims, those who stand in the way of this aim must be fought."
The Hanafi school sounds the same notes in The Hedaya: "If the infidels, upon receiving the call [to convert to Islam], neither consent to it nor agree to pay capitation tax, it is then incumbent on the Muslims to call upon God for assistance, and to make war upon them..."
And so does the Shafi'i scholar Abu'l Hasan al-Mawardi (d. 1058): "It is forbidden to...begin an attack before explaining the invitation to Islam to [unbelievers], informing them of the miracles of the Prophet and making plain the proofs so as to encourage acceptance on their part; if they still refuse to accept after this, war is waged against them and they are treated as those whom the call has reached..."
All these jurisprudential schools also teach that when a Muslim land is attacked by non-Muslims, every individual Muslim has the responsibility to wage defensive jihad. All this is in accord with Muhammad's command to Muslims invite non-Muslims to Islam and then go to war with them if they refused both conversion and second-class dhimmi status: "When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withhold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to accept Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them.... If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya [a special tax on non-Muslims; cf. Qur'an 9:29]. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them." (Sahih Muslim 4294)
...Many observers assume ... that Al-Qaeda's departure from mainstream Islam must be located in its preference for the writings of ancient jurists rather than modern ones. But no Islamic sect or school has ever reformed or rejected these teachings.
Spencer's latest book: Stealth Jihad: How Radical Islam is Subverting America without Guns or Bombs.
Yes, Christians can be terrorists. Lets start counting them - Okay Timothy McVeigh - One - well more like half he was more just anti US government. Okay next Christian terrorist - ummmmm. Sorry I draw a blank. Lets go onto Muslim Terrorists - Okay do you want it by year, living status, or by country.
In the end the list for Christian would be darn pretty small. Heck Christians would be likely near the bottom of the list we would be beat by communists, animals rights, and anarchists.
John Paulson at April 21, 2009 1:51 AM
Those who draw this analogy are nihilists. They hate existence itself.
brian at April 21, 2009 6:22 AM
Those who draw this analogy are nihilists. They hate existence itself.
I don't know about that, but they sure aren't friends of reason.
Amy Alkon at April 21, 2009 6:54 AM
Those people are assuming facts and presenting McVeigh to dodge the real issue. To end their red herring debate tactic, first ask what evidence is there that McVeigh was motivated to commit his acts by religious beliefs?
Wikipedia says this:
After his parents' divorce, McVeigh lived with his father; his sisters moved to Florida with their mother. He and his father were devout Roman Catholics who often attended daily Mass. In a recorded interview with Time magazine McVeigh professed his belief in "a God", although he said he had "sort of lost touch with" Catholicism and "never really picked it [back] up." The Guardian reported that McVeigh wrote a letter claiming to be an agnostic. McVeigh at one time said that he believed the universe was guided by natural law, energized by some universal higher power that showed each person right from wrong if they paid attention to what was going on inside them. He had also said, "Science is my religion."
I don't see much in the way of the Christian creed being attested to in that account. A Deist belief in God does not equal Christianity. And professed agnosticism pretty much takes him entirely out of the religious realm.
So next time you hear that equivalency stuff of McVeigh=Osama, say: "What evidence do you have that McVeigh was even religious, let alone a Christian?" Watch them sputter a bit before suggesting they go online to look it up. I suspect you will hear something like "everyone knows..." followed by statements that McVeigh comes from the right wing fringe of fundamentalist Christianity.
Nope. He didn't. He came from lower middle class Irish Catholicism and the US Army. I don't think either of those two cultural centers are to blame, though.
More importantly, ask the McVeigh=Osama crowd to explain why one McVeigh creates any sort of equivalency at all between modern Christianity in Western nations and Islamic fundamentalism.
After all, the reason we know McVeigh's name is *because* he is such a rarity. We could not possibly remember, however, the thousands of Muslim bombers, suicide and otherwise, who commit McVeigh's same crime on a daily--daily!--basis in locations around the world.
McVeigh was a five-leaf clover in a field of ordinary clover. Islam's field, however, has five leaf clovers sprouting up with a constant and shocking frequency.
Spartee at April 21, 2009 7:03 AM
McVeigh was a doofus who got lucky; had he parked the van a few feet away in any direction, what happened would not have happened. He just randomly positioned it at the exact place where the blast front would overstress the building structure.
Cousin Dave at April 21, 2009 8:11 AM
The difference that I see is that, no matter what religion McVeigh belonged to, you did not see Christians celebrating what he did.
My guess is that you could ask every Christian you came across their opinion of McVeigh's actions and every one would condemn him.
When you see Muslims celebrating a terrorist attack, dancing in the street and shooting off weapons, you can believe that terrorism is a part of the religion.
Steamer at April 21, 2009 8:40 AM
It's instructive to compare the Christian reaction to McVeigh & the Muslim reaction to Bin Laden. Have you ever seen anyone wearing a Timothy McVeigh T-shirt? Have you ever heard of a Christian preacher glorifying him, & urging others to follow his example? He failed in his goal of launching a movement to overthrow the Federal Government because people refused to give him a leg to stand on. Popular opinion from all walks of life was pretty unanimous that McVeigh was just an evil scumbag who should be fried as expeditiously as possible.
The Muslim popular consensus on Bin Laden was nothing like that. After 9/11, hospitals all over the Muslim world were flooded with baby boys named "Osama". Muslims only seem to be upset over suicide bombings when they're the victims, as they usually are these days. And even then they blame the West for the jihadi's actions!
Martin at April 21, 2009 8:59 AM
I'd like to thank Spartee for getting to something that has *always* bugged me about that false comparison. Since I've been blogging I've spent plenty of time looking at all kinds of terrorism, how they're alike and how they're different. McVeigh was no more a zealous Christian than he was a peaceful man. Anyone who does some research will discover numerous examples of McVeigh referring to himself as agnostic.
(I get really irritated when people make blanket statements without doing their homework.)
Another point that nobody ever makes is that McVeigh never announced any intention to put the United States under fundamentalist Christian law (whatever that might be.) He never said average Americans were sinners, or unclean, etc. He never said the Presidency should be replaced with a national Pope or Pastor.
If you're going to disagree with his actions and ideas- and I certainly do- then for Pete's sake make sure you're talking about the right actions and ideas.
Geez. It's just not that hard.
Lynne at April 21, 2009 9:42 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/04/21/stop_comparing.html#comment-1644276">comment from MartinAfter 9/11, hospitals all over the Muslim world were flooded with baby boys named "Osama".
Disgusting. A Muslim hero is a mass murderer -- right in keeping with the teachings of Islam. I'm no fan of religion, but Christians talk about "turning the other cheek." Imams encourage their followers to watch for this sort of thing so they can get in there and blow it off. They lack humanity, which they've replaced with Islam.
Amy Alkon at April 21, 2009 9:58 AM
> no matter what religion McVeigh
> belonged to, you did not see
> Christians celebrating what he did.
I never read (or cared to read) anything about McVeigh's cosmology.
But it's telling that he was a virgin when he died. Sexual incompetence is the religion that he shared with radical Islam. And I'd wager that fuckless naifs across the nation felt a celebratory twitch when they heard about Oklahoma City; they must have recognized the gesture of pathetic distraction from the hand of a brother.
(Of course cultures that oppress women are less robust than those that exploit their gifts. In the west we often talk as though liberation of women was something we just happened to stumble into, and once people in Afghanistan figure it out, they'll make more money, too. But I'm starting to wonder if there isn't something more primal at work. An animal, a man that who hates half his species must know on some fundamental level beyond consciousness that he's crippled in the appreciation of his own nature. There's more to his rage than horny loneliness, there must also be some kind of cosmic embarrassment. The oppression is accelerated: The Ouroboros is ravenous for its tail.)
(Is that incredibly obvious to everyone else? Sorry. It was fun to type anyway.)
> Popular opinion from all walks of
> life was pretty unanimous that
> McVeigh was just an evil scumbag
> who should be fried as
> expeditiously as possible.
IIRC, anti-cap punishment types gave their usual speeches, which were respectfully but listlessly attended. The other boundary to our insight is 9/11, which came down precisely three months after the execution. So we have to concentrate our recollections of that poignant summer: I recall chatter about Sandra Levy and Killer Sharks... But I don't remember anyone, anyone having anything to say about McVeigh. By the time his corpse was cold, histopic was colder.
There may be a lesson in that. Hitchens wrote a convincing essay a few years ago suggesting that capital punishment should be avoided for many reasons, including that it's tawdry. But from what I remember, killing McVeigh did a wonderful job of scrubbing his infection from the public consciousness.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at April 21, 2009 11:47 AM
His topic, not histopic.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at April 21, 2009 11:50 AM
John Paulson eloquently expressed my my thoughts as well.
Just yesterday, on Dennis Miller's radio program, he interviewed a fellow who had written a book about finding God without religion. I think this fellow would have described himself as a "humanist".
During the interview it became brutally apparent that he could not get himself to admit that most terrorism these days is carried out by Muslim extremists. If we can't honestly discuss facts then we can't have any 'real' discussion whatsoever.
Standard Disclaimer: I have lots of Muslim friends who are great, peaceful people and the majority of Muslims are not terrorists.
Robert W. (Vancouver, BC) at April 21, 2009 12:40 PM
McVeigh's use of Henley's "Invictus" was reprehensible. He made no attempt to apologize for his crime, instead choosing defiance and cloaking himself in delusions of nobility.
And the media's gullibility in McVeigh's deception was disturbing. Almost every media outlet I watched that day attributed the words to McVeigh, saying he wrote poetry while in prison.
Not a one of the "journalists" reporting McVeigh's last words seemed to know that the poem was written the 1800s by an Englishman.
Sadly, most Americans now probably believe this poem was the last words of a mass murderer and terrorist.
Conan the Grammarian at April 21, 2009 1:15 PM
Crid-
I have never read a source that said McVeigh was a virgin.
What's your source for this idea?
He was no great ladie's man, sure, but no virgin either.
Lynne at April 21, 2009 1:19 PM
Also, I seem to recall a number of women in his life that he was very fond of and protective toward- his mother for one, and he was closer than brothers usually are to his sister.
I never heard that he displayed any hatred of women in general.
What I would find interesting is an investigation of hereditary factors in his behavior. His mother was showing signs of mental illness before his crimes- stuff like mild delusions, maybe some OCD- and you have to wonder if there was something genetic in play.
Which is not to excuse him, btw.
Lynne at April 21, 2009 1:24 PM
Robert W., you are a sincere man. Almost obnoxiously so. Almost reprehensibly sincere...
But someday, someone's going to have to say out loud whether "Stadard Disclaimers" are part of the problem. We all admire your capitalization, your punctuation, perhaps punctilious presentation of the rote material...
But if you mean to be ironic, you should be funny about it. And if you don't mean to be funny, we should ask why you're so eager to excuse the "Muslim friends" for the implications of their precious rhetoric. They –your friends– should be prepared to offer explicit, convincing explanations for why their admiration of these texts doesn't signify their own lives as sources of horrific violence.
For the third time on this blog, I'm going to recite a passage from Lileks at the hour of the attacks:
I heard most of the National Cathedral ceremony (how we’ve actually managed to have such a thing without being sued, I’ve no idea) and was so heartened to hear the different voices, see the faces - a Muslim cleric, a Rabbi, a Christian pastor. That these different faiths should join in the same ceremony is absolutely characteristic of who we are now, and it’s another of the attributes that America great. And now: for the last time: I am aware of the history of the United States. The myriad deficiencies that arise from it being composed of human beings, not Swiss robots. I am well versed in these things.
I’m getting bored with having to proclaim I’m not Jumping Jimmy Jingo because I take pride in the good this country offers , and I don't immediately append a 30-minute codicil putting it the context of our atrocities of the Phillippine war. If this bothers anyone, I’m sorry.
Translation: not sorry at all.
We ought not pussyfoot.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at April 21, 2009 1:25 PM
Crid I'd buy your argument so far in that the fundamentalist strains of Islam are flawed and maybe self hating but the whole sexual incompetence line doesn't compute. Muslims are breeding far more than Christians, Jews, etc., certainly compared to the populations in the western world and Christians in the US are more likely to have more kids than non Christians.
On the whole treatment of women deal:
The Islamic world is the polar opposite of the western world when it comes to treatment of the sexes. Yeah they may be patriarchal but the west has become the exact opposite, a strong matriarchy (all while championing "equality"). I've come across a few fellow men that support the Muslim line of thought on women and how to treat them. I've often pondered it myself. Usually I take it as just an angry reaction to the injustice they see every day against men in the west. It is a dangerous line of thought however, as most of Islam is polar opposite of western/American political ideology. Men might win freedom as it were from oppression in terms of marriage/social laws but you're now under a repressive theocratic state. Meet new boss, same as the old boss.
As for capital punishment, I used to be an ardent supporter of it and in many circumstances I have no problem with it still. However, it is completely idiotic to believe it is just or fair given how corrupt much of our court system has become.
Sio at April 21, 2009 1:29 PM
"Mr. McVeigh's decision to go vegetarian groups him with some of the world's greatest visionaries, including Albert Schweitzer, Mohandas Gandhi, Leo Tolstoy, and Albert Einstein, all of whom advocated vegetarianism as an extension of humanitarianism."
PETA spokesman, Bruce Friedrich(On hearing that the last meal of Oklahoma City Bomber Timothy McVeigh before his execution consisted of two pints of mint chip ice cream)
Quoted in The Financial Times [London; US edition], June 13, 2001
Conan the Grammarian at April 21, 2009 1:32 PM
> I have never read a source
First of all, you don't read "sources" any more than I do. That being said-
> that said McVeigh was a virgin.
> What's your source for this idea?
You've got me cold... I have no idea. It was in an article 8 years ago, in that delightful interval when we thought collapsing buildings was a 1990's kind of problem, and there was no needs to save "sources" to disk for arguments down the road. I believe the passage also said something like 'and never had a satisfactory intimacy with a woman'. I'll be doing some googling tonight.
> Also, I seem to recall
Nope, we gonna need cites from here on out. Because—
> He was no great ladie's man,
> sure, but no virgin either.
I'm ready to concede the point, if you have some reason to be so certain.
> I seem to recall a number of
> women in his life that he was
> very fond of and protective
> toward-
His squishiest heart isn't really the topic here... Adult social fitness is more of what I'm getting at. And from what I remember (and I'll be looking this up, too), he was a child of divorce. Whooda thunkit?
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at April 21, 2009 1:48 PM
> Muslims are breeding far more
> than Christians, Jews, etc.
Fecundity isn't competence.
> Yeah they may be patriarchal but
But nothing. Fuck 'em.
(And "patriarchial" hardly covers it.)
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at April 21, 2009 1:51 PM
I'm so glad you know what I read.
Try: American Terrorist: Timothy McVeigh and the Oklahoma City Bombing
Lou Michel and Dan Herbeck
Regan Books, 2001
Let me know when you have digested all 400+ pages.
Failing that (too much work, I'm sure!) You could try "An Ordinary Boy's Extraordinary Rage," Washington Post, 1995, Dale Russakoff and Serge F. Kovaleski
Or perhaps John Doe Number 1: A Special Report,
Robert D. McFadden, NYT, 1995 (Though this is mainly culled from observations of fellow soldiers, not much sexual innuendo)
Michel and Herbeck maintain that, while no Lothario, McVeigh had his share of sexual activity. Perhaps your perception comes from the fact that, while in jail, McVeigh tried to have some of his sperm smuggled out so he could father children. Or perhaps it stems from the rather public disagreement he got into with Marife, Terry Nichols's wife, with whom McVeigh claimed to have had an affair. And of course there were no doubt plenty of folk willing to claim their 15 minutes of fame by speculating on his virginity. Let me know what you find.
I respect your right to disagree with me, Crid. But do not ever tell me that I don't read sources.
Maybe *you* should, before you mouth off.
Just sayin'.
Lynne at April 21, 2009 2:44 PM
None of these are the magazine piece that I remember. And I'll grant you, there are at least 168 excellens reasons for a woman to deny having slept with Timothy McVeigh. Replace the spaces with periods. —
www independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/does-one-man-on-death-row-hold-the-secret-of-oklahoma-574920 html
Even on federal death row, McVeigh's crimes were on a scale that disgusted his fellow inmates. He was frequently tarred as a "baby killer" (the bomb exploded directly beneath a children's day care centre) and taunted for everything from his conviction that the world would tumble into chaos as he year 2000 rolled around, to his apparent dearth of sexual experiences."Virgin McVeigh", they called him.
---–
www guardian.co.uk/books/2007/apr/28/theatre.stage
McVeigh had no police record, had served with distinction as a soldier, had a high intelligence, though he was morbidly shy and possibly a virgin.
---
www telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/3664965/Strange-tale-of-sex-and-terrorism html
Was sexual confusion the fuel for McVeigh's rage, does he think? "No one would say outright that he was a virgin," White says, "but there are two biographies of him, and when you comb though them, you think: where are the girlfriends or the boyfriends? There doesn't seem to be anyone."
---
www law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/FTrials/mcveigh/conspirators html
Under the entry "future plans" in his high school yearbook, McVeigh wrote: "Take it as it comes, buy a Lamborghini, California girls." Despite his reference to "California girls," McVeigh seemed uncomfortable around women, never had a girlfriend, and might have remained a virgin throughout his entire life.
---
And by way of his Wiki entry, a passage from his authorized biography: "his only sustaining relief from his unsatisfied sex drive was his even stronger desire to die."
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at April 21, 2009 3:01 PM
So wait -
Not getting laid makes people blow up buildings?
How come Cambridge is still around?
brian at April 21, 2009 3:15 PM
Settle down, it's your word "sources" that I was making fun of... 'What source will I read as I enjoy my morning coffee?'
And it's not sufficient to say the NYT is low on sexual innuendo; the full title is "TERROR IN OKLAHOMA: John Doe No. 1 -- A special report.; A Life of Solitude and Obsessions." Two extracts:
1st - "He was real different," said Todd A. Regier, a 29-year-old Topeka, Kan., plumber who served with Mr. McVeigh. "Kind of cold. He wasn't enemies with anyone. He was kind of almost like a robot. He never had a date when I knew him in the Army. I never saw him at a club. I never saw him drinking. He never had good friends.
2nd - He went bowling occasionally, but did not go drinking with other troopers, and never had a date.
"He was very shy of women -- almost embarrassed," said Sheffield A. Anderson, who was a trooper in Mr. McVeigh's vehicle and is now an officer with the Florida Department of Corrections. "It didn't seem he was gay. He was just awkward."
And that's as close as the piece gets to a discussion of sex.
As it turns out, your Washington Post citation is the fourth entry in my earlier comment. It includes these additional passages:
He also observed in McVeigh both anger and indifference toward women. A woman once passed her phone number to the co-worker, seeking a date with McVeigh. "He looked at the piece of paper and just ripped it to pieces," the co-worker recalled.
---
Fellow soldiers said McVeigh was extremely uncomfortable around women. He once showed Ayers Anderson a picture of a woman with whom his sister Jennifer wanted to set him up. "We encouraged him to follow up on it, but he seemed really awkward," Anderson said. "He just kept turning red."
> (too much work, I'm sure!)
Well, you've piqued my interest! There's a copy on the shelf at the local branch, so I'll get back to you on this... You wouldn't kid a kidder, would you?
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at April 21, 2009 3:42 PM
Well, where it gets interesting is that I've counted pretty much as many claims that he never got laid as there were claims that he did.
The first source I cited maintains that he managed to score a few hits off his uniform right after the success of Desert Storm, which is believable.
Now, to be fair to other assertions, I've never read anything indicating that he had a successful, longterm relationship with any one woman. Most people say he was pretty geeky.
I think it's probably fair to say that he scored once or twice but couldn't put together a relationship.
I also think it's fair to speculate that he put all that sexual energy into his political obsessions. He was so very paranoid of gov't., even before he decided to blow people up. He used to send his sister these detailed letters a la Mission Impossible and tell her to burn stuff he considered 'evidence.'
As for fellow inmates, if you happen to pick up that book I mentioned (and by now it's probably in the public library, so you don't have to buy it, like I did), there's this *fascinating* essasy in the the back by the UnaBomber, who was housed in the same prison as McVeigh. His analysis of the Oklahoma City Bomb "action" is as riveting as it is weird.
The reasons/rationalizations behind terrorism have a morbid fascination for me. When I say I research, I mean it.
For a long while I've wanted to get my hands on a copy the the Turner Diaries- the Bible of the militia movement- but I've always been worried that if I bought one online someone would get the wrong idea. And I've never gotten round to reading Others Unknown or any of the books claiming a conspiracy with Middle Easterners.
That conspiracy stuff always seemed a bit cheesy to me. What do you think? Does it pass the sniff test with you?
I'm more interested in his mother's later mental illness and how that might figure into it.
And I suppose I tend to use the word 'sources' because I spent 15 years working in an academic library.
Lynne at April 21, 2009 4:16 PM
Lynne, you do realize thst by mentioning the diaries you have gotten all of us put on a government watchlist
lujlp at April 21, 2009 5:42 PM
Lujlp - just insulting Obama gets you on that list.
See you in the camps!
brian at April 21, 2009 6:02 PM
Its gonna take a lot of body bag to clean up after anyone trying to put me in a camp
lujlp at April 21, 2009 6:08 PM
Luj, you do realize that our military has missiles that can send you to Valhalla from 1,500 miles away, right?
Not that I think our military will turn on us, but if it came down to revolution, it's us against the government, and they have much bigger guns.
brian at April 21, 2009 8:00 PM
Nice thing about cut backs is they wouldnt waste a missle on one person, I wonder if they'd break out the artilery guns
lujlp at April 21, 2009 9:12 PM
crid and Lynne - I think I hate you now. I went Googling on McVeigh when the subject of whether he was a virgin or not came up, and wound up at a Conspiracy website which claims that the Oklahoma City bombing was an inside job, just like the Truthers do about 9/11. GAH!!!
I'm not going to point you there, but search for "Was Timothy McVeigh Really Executed" if you want to see it.
WayneB at April 22, 2009 8:06 AM
Wayne -
Nobody wants to believe that a lone nut with a plan can change the course of history. So they make up elaborate stories of how dark forces beyond everyone's comprehension are really calling the shots.
brian at April 22, 2009 8:31 AM
WayneB-
Now you see just how easy it is to get sucked into all this terrorism stuff.
Geez, sometimes it's like McVeigh is the new Oswald.
Where's the Oliver Stone movie?
If I was independently wealthy, I'd undertake research for a book about the wildest conspiracy theorists and what makes them tick- vs. the wildest terrorists and what makes them tick.
I mean, we all have our moments, but what makes a person that fanatical 24/7/365? I think it's worth looking into.
And I'd want someone like Crid working with me- a tough skeptic is endlessly useful in this type of work.
Lynne at April 22, 2009 10:50 AM
Every other word on the topic says virgin, but in his authorized bio, McVeigh claims otherwise. The only reason to believe him is that the described encounter seems so clumsy.
But I still have doubts, and am certain that he was sexually incompetent... It's likely that some of the 19 hijackers had seen a woman naked once or twice too, but I wouldn't describe them as adult personalities. These are all undercooked human beings.
McVeigh's family was a particularly bad case, which gives hope that we have to be unlucky to kick out a monster like that, the kind that impoverished Islam generates almost routinely.
Anyway, I'm confident that McVeigh won't become an Oswald. I think the Kennedy assassination fascinates a particular generation (smug boomers) in a particular context (exploding mass media). Skater boys in the Google Age (or at least the Alta Vista years) are a different animal.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at April 22, 2009 2:44 PM
Turns out Alta Vista's still out there.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at April 22, 2009 2:45 PM
It's likely that some of the 19 hijackers had seen a woman naked once or twice too, but I wouldn't describe them as adult personalities. These are all undercooked human beings.
The ones who spent the evening of September 10th at a strip club did.
Conan the Grammarian at April 22, 2009 9:38 PM
Strip clubs? From Flynne's WaPo piece:
McVeigh resumed a close relationship with his sister Jennifer, then a high-school senior, who did not appear to share his political views. Wearing a glamorous cloud of hair and a double-wide smile in her class photo, she wrote in her yearbook under "favorites": "dancing . . . & passing out" and "i layed on the ice," the words "purr" and "meow" interspersed here and there. She was a waitress at the Crazy Horse Saloon, where she was a champion jello wrestler, fighting male patrons while wearing a bikini, ankle-deep in gelatin.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at April 23, 2009 1:28 AM
Letter from the Telegraph:
Taliban target Sikhs
SIR – Your report (April 23) refers to the imposition of Sharia by the Taliban in the Swat Valley, but does not mention that the main victims so far have been Sikhs.
Sharia, in its literal interpretation, discriminates against non-Muslims. The Taliban has informed the Sikh residents of the Ferozekhel area in Lower Orakzai Agency that they, as non-Muslims, are liable to pay jizya (protection) tax of 50 million rupees. Fifteen Sikh families have already left their homes, while the remaining 10 are preparing to leave.
Sikhs constitute only a tiny percentage of Pakistan’s population and a majority of them live in areas threatened by the Taliban. It is a pity that the peace agreement signed by the Pakistani government with the Taliban fails to take into account the plight of its most vulnerable religious minority.
Amrik Singh Dhillon
Elderly Sikhs Association
Ilford, Essex
>>>
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/letters/5208382/The-unspoken-truth-behind-the-Budget-is-that-our-floundering-economy-can-no-longer-afford-the-Welfare-State.html
Norman at April 24, 2009 2:00 AM
Leave a comment