Mcveigh Essay On Hypocrisy

Timothy James McVeigh (April 23, 1968 – June 11, 2001) was an American terrorist. A former United States Army soldier and security guard, he bombed the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, killing 168 people. He was convicted of committing 11 offenses of United States federal law, and was sentenced to death. He was executed in 2001 for his role in the bombing, which happened on April 19, 1995. The bombing was the deadliest event of domestic terrorism in the United States, and the deadliest act of terrorism within the territorial borders of the United States, until the September 11 attacks of 2001.

Quotes[edit]

  • ATF, all you tyrannical people will swing in the wind one day for your treasonous actions against the Constitution of the United States. Remember the Nuremberg War Trials.
    • As quoted in "Timothy McVeigh & Terry Nichols: Oklahoma Bombing" (2010), TruTv.
  • Being face to face with these people, you realize, they're just people like you.

1990s[edit]

  • A man with nothing left to lose is a very dangerous man and his energy/anger can be focused toward a common/righteous goal. What I'm asking you to do, then, is sit back and be honest with yourself. Do you have kids/wife? Would you back out at the last minute to care for the family? Are you interested in keeping your firearms for their current/future monetary value, or would you drag that '06 through rock, swamp and cactus...to get off the needed shot? In short, I'm not looking for talkers, I'm looking for fighters...And if you are a fed, think twice. Think twice about the Constitution you are supposedly enforcing (isn't "enforcing freedom" an oxymoron?) and think twice about catching us with our guard down – you will lose just like Degan did – and your family will lose.[
  • Those who betray or subvert the Constitution are guilty of sedition and/or treason, are domestic enemies and should and will be punished accordingly. It also stands to reason that anyone who sympathizes with the enemy or gives aid or comfort to said enemy is likewise guilty. I have sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic and I will. And I will because not only did I swear to, but I believe in what it stands for in every bit of my heart, soul and being. I know in my heart that I am right in my struggle, Steve. I have come to peace with myself, my God and my cause. Blood will flow in the streets, Steve. Good vs. Evil. Free Men vs. Socialist Wannabe Slaves. Pray it is not your blood, my friend.
  • Think of it this way. When I was in the Army, you didn't see me for years. Think of me that way now, like I'm away in the Army again, on an assignment for the military.

Letter to the Union-Sun & Journal (1992)[edit]

Letter from Timothy McVeigh to the Union-Sun & Journal (11 February 1992)
  • Crime is so out of control. Criminals have no fear of punishment. Prisons are overcrowded so they know they will not be imprisoned long. This breeds more crime, in an escalating cyclic pattern.
  • Taxes are a joke. Regardless of what a political candidate 'promises', they will increase. More taxes are always the answer to government mismanagement. They mess up. We suffer. Taxes are reaching cataclysmic levels, with no slowdown in sight.
  • The 'American Dream' of the middle class has all but disappeared, substituted with people struggling just to buy next week's groceries. Heaven forbid the car breaks down!
  • Politicians are further eroding the 'American Dream' by passing laws which are supposed to be a 'quick fix', when all they are really designed for is to get the official re-elected. These laws tend to "dilute" a problem for a while, until the problem comes roaring back in a worsened form much like a strain of bacteria will alter itself to defeat a known medication.
  • Politicians are out of control. Their yearly salaries are more than an average person will see in a lifetime. They have been entrusted with the power to regulate their own salaries, and have grossly violated that trust to live in their own luxury.
  • Racism on the rise? You had better believe it! Is this America's frustrations venting themselves? Is it a valid frustration? Who is to blame for the mess? At a point when the world has seen communism falter as an imperfect system to manage people; democracy seems to be headed down the same road. No one is seeing the 'big' picture.
  • Maybe we have to contribute ideologies to achieve the perfect utopian government. Remember, government-sponsored health care was a communist idea. Should only the rich be allowed to live long? Does that say that because a person is poor, he is a lesser human being; and doesn't deserve to live as long, because he doesn't wear a tie to work?
  • What is it going to take to open the eyes of our elected officials? America is in serious decline!
  • We have no proverbial tea to dump, should we instead sink a ship full of Japanese imports? Is a Civil War Imminent? Do we have to shed blood to reform the current system? I hope it doesn't come to that. But it might.

Letter to John J. LaFalce (1992)[edit]

Letter to John J. LaFalce (16 February 1992).
  • Should any other person or governing body be able to tell another person that he/she cannot save their own life, because it would be a violation of a law?
  • I strongly believe in a God-given right to self-defense.
  • It is a lie if we tell ourselves that the police can protect us everywhere, at all times. Firearms restrictions are bad enough, but now a woman can't even carry Mace in her purse?

An Essay on Hypocrisy (1998)[edit]

McVeigh, Timothy J. (June 1998). "An Essay on Hypocrisy". Media Bypass magazine.

The administration has said that Iraq has no right to stockpile chemical or biological weapons ("weapons of mass destruction") -- mainly because they have used them in the past.

Well, if that's the standard by which these matters are decided, then the U.S. is the nation that set the precedent. The U.S. has stockpiled these same weapons (and more) for over 40 years. The U.S. claims that this was done for deterrent purposes during the "Cold War" with the Soviet Union. Why, then is it invalid for Iraq to claim the same reason (deterrence) -- with respect to Iraq's (real) war with, and the continued threat of, its neighbor Iran?

The administration claims that Iraq has used these weapons in the past. We've all seen the pictures that show a Kurdish woman and child frozen in death from the use of chemical weapons. But, have you ever seen these pictures juxtaposed next to pictures from Hiroshima or Nagasaki?

I suggest that one study the histories of World War I, World War II and other "regional conflicts" that the U.S. has been involved in to familiarize themselves with the use of "weapons of mass destruction."

Remember Dresden? How about Hanoi? Tripoli? Baghdad? What about the big ones -- Hiroshima and Nagasaki? (At these two locations, the U.S. killed at least 150,000 non-combatants -- mostly women and children -- in the blink of an eye. Thousands more took hours, days, weeks, or months to die.)

If Saddam is such a demon, and people are calling for war crimes charges and trials against him and his nation, why do we not hear the same cry for blood directed at those responsible for even greater amounts of "mass destruction" -- like those responsible and involved in dropping bombs on the cities mentioned above?

The truth is, the U.S. has set the standard when it comes to the stockpiling and use of weapons of mass destruction.

Hypocrisy when it comes to death of children? In Oklahoma City, it was family convenience that explained the presence of a day-care center placed between street level and the law enforcement agencies which occupied the upper floors of the building. Yet when discussion shifts to Iraq, any day-care center in a government building instantly becomes "a shield." Think about that.

(Actually, there is a difference here. The administration has admitted to knowledge of the presence of children in or near Iraqi government buildings, yet they still proceed with their plans to bomb -- saying that they cannot be held responsible if children die. There is no such proof, however, that knowledge of the presence of children existed in relation to the Oklahoma City bombing.)

When considering morality and mens rea [criminal intent] in light of these facts, I ask: Who are the true barbarians?

Yet another example of this nation's blatant hypocrisy is revealed by the polls which suggest that this nation is greatly in favor of bombing Iraq.

In this instance, the people of the nation approve of bombing government employees because they are "guilty by association" -- they are Iraqi government employees. In regard to the bombing in Oklahoma City, however, such logic is condemned.

What motivates these seemingly contradictory positions? Do people think that government workers in Iraq are any less human than those in Oklahoma City? Do they think that Iraqis don't have families who will grieve and mourn the loss of their loved ones? In this context, do people come to believe that the killing of foreigners is somehow different than the killing of Americans?

I recently read of an arrest in New York City where possession of a mere pipe bomb was charged as possession of a "weapon of mass destruction." If a two pound pipe bomb is a "weapon of mass destruction," then what do people think that a 2,000-pound steel-encased bomb is?

I find it ironic, to say the least, that one of the aircraft that could be used to drop such a bomb on Iraq is dubbed "The Spirit of Oklahoma."

When a U.S. plane or cruise missile is used to bring destruction to a foreign people, this nation rewards the bombers with applause and praise. What a convenient way to absolve these killers of any responsibility for the destruction they leave in their wake.

Unfortunately, the morality of killing is not so superficial. The truth is, the use of a truck, a plane, or a missile for the delivery of a weapon of mass destruction does not alter the nature of the act itself.

These are weapons of mass destruction -- and the method of delivery matters little to those on the receiving end of such weapons.

Whether you wish to admit it or not, when you approve, morally, of the bombing of foreign targets by the U.S. military, you are approving of acts morally equivalent to the bombing in Oklahoma City. The only difference is that this nation is not going to see any foreign casualties appear on the cover of Newsweek magazine.

It seems ironic and hypocritical that an act viciously condemned in Oklahoma City is now a "justified" response to a problem in a foreign land. Then again, the history of United States policy over the last century, when examined fully, tends to exemplify hypocrisy.

When considering the use of weapons of mass destruction against Iraq as a means to an end, it would be wise to reflect on the words of the late U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis. His words are as true in the context of Olmstead as they are when they stand alone: "Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example."

2000s[edit]

  • I have great respect for human life. My decision to take human life at the Murrah Building – I did not do it for personal gain. I ease my mind in that... I did it for the larger good.
    • Interview for American Terrorist (2001) by Lou Michel and Dan Herbeck
  • I like the phrase "shot heard 'round the world," and I don't think there's any doubt the Oklahoma City blast was heard around the world.
    • Interview for American Terrorist (2001) by Lou Michel and Dan Herbeck
  • With your recent interview in Pitch, you become the first person I've heard of (or from) that has figured me out.
  • I understand what they felt in Oklahoma City. I have no sympathy for them.
  • If there is a hell, then I'll be in good company with a lot of fighter pilots who also had to bomb innocents to win the war.
  • You can't handle the truth. Because the truth is, I blew up the Murrah building and isn't it kind of scary that one man could reap this kind of hell?
  • I am sorry these people had to lose their lives. But that's the nature of the beast. It's understood going in what the human toll will be.
    • Letters published in the Buffalo News (10 June 2001)
  • For those diehard conspiracy theorists who will refuse to believe this, I turn the tables and say: show me where I needed anyone else. Financing? Logistics? Specialised tech skills? Brainpower? Strategy? Show me where I needed a dark, mysterious 'Mr X'!
    • Letters published in the Buffalo News (10 June 2001)
  • If there would not have been a Waco, I would have put down roots somewhere and not been so unsettled with the fact that my government … was a threat to me. Everything that Waco implies was on the forefront of my thoughts. That sort of guided my path for the next couple of years.
    • Letters published in the Buffalo News (10 June 2001).

Why I Bombed the Murrah Federal Building (2001)[edit]

I Explain Herein Why I Bombed the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City (26 April 2001), Fox News.
  • I explain herein why I bombed the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. I explain this not for publicity, nor seeking to win an argument of right or wrong. I explain so that the record is clear as to my thinking and motivations in bombing a government installation.
  • I chose to bomb a federal building because such an action served more purposes than other options. Foremost, the bombing 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 '80s; 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.
  • Knowledge of these multiple and ever-more aggressive raids across the country constituted an identifiable pattern of conduct within and by the federal government and amongst its various agencies. For all intents and purposes, federal agents had become 'soldiers' using military training, tactics, techniques, equipment, language, dress, organization, and mindset and they were escalating their behavior. Therefore, this bombing was also meant as a pre-emptive or pro-active strike against these forces and their command and control centers within the federal building. When an aggressor force continually launches attacks from a particular base of operation, it is sound military strategy to take the fight to the enemy.
  • Additionally, borrowing a page from U.S. foreign policy, I decided to send a message to a government that was becoming increasingly hostile, by bombing a government building and the government employees within that building who represent that government. Bombing the Murrah Federal Building was morally and strategically equivalent to the U.S. hitting a government building in Serbia, Iraq, or other nations. Based on observations of the policies of my own government, I viewed this action as an acceptable option. From this perspective, what occurred in Oklahoma City was no different than what Americans rain on the heads of others all the time, and subsequently, my mindset was and is one of clinical detachment. The bombing of the Murrah building was not personal, no more than when Air Force, Army, Navy, or Marine personnel bomb or launch cruise missiles against government installations and their personnel. I hope that this clarification amply addresses your question. Sincerely, Timothy J. McVeigh. USP Terre Haute (IN).

Quotes about McVeigh[edit]

  • A decent person who had allowed rage to build up inside him to the point that he had lashed out in one terrible, violent act.

External links[edit]

I am sorry these people had to lose their lives. But that's the nature of the beast. It's understood going in what the human toll will be.
Should any other person or governing body be able to tell another person that he/she cannot save their own life, because it would be a violation of a law?
Should only the rich be allowed to live long? Does that say that because a person is poor, he is a lesser human being; and doesn't deserve to live as long, because he doesn't wear a tie to work?
I understand what they felt... I have no sympathy for them.
Do we have to shed blood to reform the current system? I hope it doesn't come to that. But it might.
I have come to peace with myself, my God and my cause. Blood will flow in the streets... Pray it is not your blood, my friend.
ATF, all you tyrannical people will swing in the wind one day for your treasonous actions against the Constitution of the United States. Remember the Nuremberg War Trials.
I have sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic and I will. And I will because not only did I swear to, but I believe in what it stands for in every bit of my heart, soul and being. I know in my heart that I am right in my struggle...

Timothy McVeigh’s Terrorist Motivations: Drifting towards and neutralising mass murder

The following essay aims to analyse the motivations behind the Oklahoma City bombing of the 19th April 1995. Timothy McVeigh, a right wing extremist and gun rights advocate caused the blast by detonating a truck bomb outside the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building[1]. After the biggest criminal investigation in U.S history, McVeigh was found guilty of mass murder in 1997 and was subsequently executed by lethal injection in 2001. The bombing was the largest act of domestic terrorism in the United States and was the deadliest since the September 11 2001 attacks. The bomb blast “killed 168 people, including twenty-one children, and injured more than 500 others”. [2] Terry Nichols was also sentenced to lifetime imprisonment for being a co conspirator in the attack with McVeigh[3].

The criminological theory which most reflects Timothy McVeigh’s viewpoints and motivation for the bombing is that of drift and neutralisation, which was first expounded upon by Gresham Skyes and David Matza in a 1957 article entitled Techniques of Neutralisation: A Theory of Delinquency[4]. As a social processes theory, drift and Neutralisation sees crime to be a part of wider social interactions. It views social order as non objective and non consensual and posits that there is not a single fundamental social goal that is held by all social groups; rather there are many different overlapping social values within a society, both conventional and delinquent: legitimate and illegitimate. Drift and Neutralisation Theory posits that individuals learn values and delinquent behaviours through their exposure to sub-cultural values. “Deviant or delinquent (or criminal) subcultures do not reject ‘dominant’ values and beliefs. Instead there is tension between inclinations to adhere to mainstream values and beliefs.”[5] This sees that criminals can drift between deviant and conventional behaviours and have to use various techniques of neutralisation to rationalise their criminal activity.In analysing McVeigh’s motives, his learned sub cultural values can be examined to demonstrate how he was able to rationalise his violations of the law and how he came to drift from non delinquent to delinquent actions. The techniques of neutralisation; denial of responsibility, denial of injury, denial of victim, condemnation of condemners and appeal to higher loyalties are also extremely useful in explaining how McVeigh could rationalise both the means and the ends of the Oklahoma bombing.

Drift and Neutralisation theory posits that criminal activity involves the learning of “motives, drives rationalisations, and attitudes favourable to the violation of the law’”. [6] The motivations for the bombing and McVeigh’s drift into rationalising his behaviour can be found in his radical sub cultural ideology. McVeigh viewed himself as a patriot who believed that owning a gun was a rightful sign of freedom and increasingly grew to dislike the government, in what he saw as an all two powerful evil, “The government is continually growing bigger and more powerful, and the people need to prepare to defend themselves against government control”. [7] Tighter government regulations on firearms, as seen in the 1993 Brady Bill was viewed as a serious threat to individual freedoms.[8] Such sub cultural values were so strong within McVeigh who claimed “when guns are outlawed, I will become an outlaw”[9].

McVeigh’s sub cultural values were also heavily influenced by right wing militia ideologies. McVeigh was found to have a copy of The Turner Diaries in his car. The book written by William

Pierce, founder of the Neo-Nazi National Alliance is often cited as the manual for the bombing.

“Pierce’s description of a terrorist attack against the FBI building in Washington, D.C., using a

truck fertilizer bomb was chillingly similar to what happened in Oklahoma City ”. [10] McVeigh was

also arrested wearing a T-shirt of Abraham Lincoln with the phrase Sic Semper Tyrannis (Thus Always to tyrants), said by President Lincolns assassin.[11]

The motivation behind McVeigh’s bombing can initially be explained through a denial of responsibility”. [12] McVeigh through his exposure to extremist right wing ideologies saw himself

as a freedom fighter against the oppressiveness of the federal government. having an extremely twisted logic, McVeigh saw that the Government should be held accountable for the bombing than himself, and ultimately he was given no choice in committing the crime a against the government in order to restore individual liberties. “I am sorry they had to die but it is the fault of the US Government, not my fault”[13]. McVeigh’s motivations can also be explained through a denial of injury. This technique of neutralisation rationalises criminal action under the pretence that the criminal act doesn’t really affect the target. In blowing up the Murrah Building he believed it would send a message, but ultimately it would not have been that detrimental, “The government could give a shit about a building. They’ve got bottomless pockets to build a new one.”[14] Whilst he recognised that killing people would send a strong message, McVeigh could be seen through neutralisation to still deny the injury to his bombing victims as he saw that “death and loss are an integral part of life everywhere”[15], “The truth is your not the first mother to lose a kid, you’re not the first grandparent to lose a granddaughter or grandson. Get over it”[16]

McVeigh’s denial of injury also saw him rationalise the bombing as a tactical military mission, whereby in order to succeed in sending a strong meaningful message to the federal government about respecting the individual rights of citizens, he would have to strike them where it hurts most. “The only way they’re gonna’ feel something, the only way they’re gonna’ get the message is quote, ‘with a body count.’ ” [17]. McVeigh saw that such an attack would help disseminate a strong emotional message across the world, and was in no way different to attacks by the U.S. military on foreign countries. He explained that, “one of the chief intentions of it was the same of dropping the bomb on Hiroshima. And what was that? To hit them hard, by surprise and heavily. You know, and say listen, if you don’t knock it off, there’s more of this to come.”[18]

However here lies a shortfall of the theory of neutralisation, McVeigh did not choose to bomb anyone as he was in denial of the injury caused by the crimes, just so he could show comparisons with the U.S military. McVeigh’s crime was heavily calculated to order to create a lasting political message. For example the Murrah building was chosen under the criteria that it was filled state authorities [19] and McVeigh cited that he intentionally carried out the bombing on the 2 year anniversary of Siege at Waco.[20] McVeigh’s calculated actions for political expression could be better explained through strain theory, whereby as McVeigh’s goal of freedom, gun right and non intervention by government could not be facilitated through legitimate means, such as petitions, protests, or the electoral system. This may have been seen to cause a strain whereby the illegitimate act of bombing was used instead to try and achieve such goals.[21]

The Neutralisation technique known as denial of the victim is extremely useful in explaining McVeigh’s motivations. The technique sees that a delinquent can neutralise moral indignations by rationalising that a particular illegitimate behaviour is not wrong given the overall circumstances; even if the person acknowledges his illegitimate behaviours and it negative casual effects. Criminal behaviour may therefore not be regarded as a crime at all; “rather, it is a form of rightful retaliation or punishment”. [22] McVeigh cites that the bombing was a justified retaliation against the federal governments violent actions against it own citizens and was ignited by two infamous incidents. In 1992 Randy Weaver a farmer in Ruby Ridge, Idaho, was involved in a confrontation with U.S federal authorities, resulting in the death of two of weaver’s family and a federal agent.[23] On April 19 1993 the FBI initiated a raid upon the property of the Branch Davidians, a religious sect outside near Waco, Texas, after an initial attempt to carry out a search warrant on the property by the ATF[24] had failed. The siege by government authorities resulted in the deaths of 51 adults and 26 children, including its leader, David Koresh. [25]

McVeigh, like many right wing extremists saw the government’s actions in Ruby Ridge and Waco as a blatant disregard for America’s core values of liberty and freedom[26]. McVeigh saw the victims as fellow gun right advocates and liberty lovers. He reminisced on the event by saying, “what is this, what has America become? I just remember that scene burned into my memory. I’m emotional right now as I talk about it. I felt absolute rage”. [27]For McVeigh the Waco siege helped to neutralise any associated moral indignation and justify retaliation against the federal government, who he believed must be sent a strong message so as to never go any further. These events undoubtedly galvanised McVeigh’s strong anti government views and influenced him to fight the government, “and it was at that point when I was fully intent in my life that I was gonna’ live outside the law.”[28]

The denial of the victim can also transform a victim into a person deserving to be attacked”. [29], McVeigh recognised the federal government as an appropriate target for an attack, as they were oppressing their own citizens and quelling their individual rights. McVeigh saw the state authorities as the real criminals, and their actions in events such as Waco to be constitutive of an act of war. “the rules of engagement, if not written down, are defined by the actions of an aggressor, okay? Now, what rules of engagement would you interpret in examining Waco? Kids are fair game? Women are fair game?” [30]

The Condemnation of the Condemners is another technique of neutralisation that reflects McVeigh’s viewpoints and motivations regarding the bombing. It sees that a criminal changes the focus of his own criminal acts and those who are in disapproval of these acts. As Skyes and Matza note,  “His condemners, he may claim, are hypocrites, deviants in disguise, or impelled by personal spite [31]”. For McVeigh increased arm controls, events such as Waco, and the double standards of US foreign policy rendered the government as hypocrites. In An Essay on Hypocrisy, McVeigh vents such views on hypocrisy and equivalent acts by the government.

“Whether you wish to admit it or not, when you approve, morally, of the bombing of foreign targets by the U.S. military, you are approving of acts morally equivalent to the bombing in Oklahoma City. The only difference is that this nation is not going to see any foreign casualties appear on the cover of Newsweek magazine” [32]

In analysing McVeigh’s motivations behind the bombing, the Appeal to Higher Loyalties is another neutralisation technique that helps reflect his viewpoint[33]. For McVeigh liberty and the right to bear arms were seen to be of the upmost importance, to which the government was seen as a direct threat. The demands of McVeigh’s extremist sub cultural and ideological values would be by viewed to be of greater importance than that the lives of innocent people situated in the Murrah building. As Skyes and Matza explain “other norms, held to be more pressing or involving a higher loyalty, are accorded precedence”. [34] McVeigh’s deviance certainly did not stem from a rejection of the norm that killing innocent people is wrong, but rather he saw his fight against the government paramount. Widespread death and destruction was ultimately seen as the means that would justify the ends to a greater good, as McVeigh would elaborate on in an interview, “This was something that I saw as a larger good, and I know that as I analysed the history of not just the U.S but all nations throughout the history of mankind, people have killed for what they believed was the greater good … and it’s acceptable , sometimes killing  is expected”[35]

McVeigh’s learned sub cultural values saw him drift towards deviant behaviours through the influence of Radical right wing anti government ideologies, further helping him to rationalise the bombings.  The neutralisation technique of denying responsibility saw McVeigh shift the blame of the bombing to the government. McVeigh’s denial of injury helped him rationalise that the bombing really didn’t affect the government and that unexpected death and destruction was simply part of human nature. The denial of the victim helped McVeigh’s rationalisation of the attack as an act of retaliation against an all too oppressive government and incidents such as Waco also helped to transform the victims of the bombing into legitimate targets. Through a condemnation of the Condemners he rationalised government authorities as hypocrites’, whereby his actions in Oklahoma were in no way different to the actions of the government. McVeigh’s can be seen to further rationalise his crime by his appeal to higher loyalties, whereby the bombing was justified as a means to an end for to the greater overall good of sending a message to an all too powerful government.


[1] Tuman, J.S., Communicating Terror: The Rhetorical Dimensions of Terrorism, 2nd ed, London, Sage Publications, 2010, p. 70.

[2] Wright, S.A., Patriots, Politics, and the Oklahoma City Bombing, Sydney, Cambridge University Press, 2007, p. 6.

[4] Skyes, G.M & Matza, D., ‘Techniques of Neutralisation: A Theory of delinquency’, American Sociological Association, Vol. 22, No. 6, December 1957, p. 664 -670.

[5] Goldsmith, A., Israel, M., Daly, K., Crime and Justice: An Australian Textbook in Criminology 2nd Ed, Sydney, Thomson Legal & Regulatory Limited Co., 2003, p. 84.

[6] , Skyes, G.M & Matza., p. 664.

[7] Serrano, R.A., One of Ours: Timothy McVeigh and the Oklahoma City Bombing, New York, W.W. Norton and Company, 1998, p. 70.

[10] Linethal, E.D., The Unfinished Bombing: Oklahoma City in American Memory, New York, Oxford University Press, 2001, p. 39.

[11] Hamm, M.S., ‘Apocalyptic Violence: The Seduction of Terrorist Subcultures’, Theoretical Criminology, Vol. 8, 2004, p. 328.

[12] Skyes, G.M & Matza, p. 677.

[17] ‘The McVeigh Tapes – Part 7’: op.cit.

[19] Serrano, R.A., p. 99.

[20] ‘The McVeigh Tapes – part 3’: MSNBC, op.cit.

[21] White, R., Haines, F., Crime and Criminology, Melbourne, Oxford University Press, 1996, p. 66.

[22] Skyes, G.M & Matza, D., p. 668.

[24] (ATF) Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms

[27] ‘The McVeigh Tapes – Part 6’: op.cit.

[29] Skyes, G.M & Matza, D., p. 668.

[31] Skyes, G.M & Matza, D., ‘Techniques of Neutralisation: A Theory of delinquency’, American Sociological Association, Vol. 22, No. 6, December 1957, p. 668.

[32] McVeigh, T.J., An Essay on Hypocrisy, Media Bypass / Alternative Media, Inc., 1998, p. 4.

[33] Skyes, G.M & Matza, D., ‘Techniques of Neutralisation: A Theory of delinquency’, American Sociological Association, Vol. 22, No. 6, December 1957, p. 668.

[34] Skyes, G.M & Matza, D., ‘Techniques of Neutralisation: A Theory of delinquency’, American Sociological Association, Vol. 22, No. 6, December 1957, p 669.

Like this:

LikeLoading...

0 thoughts on “Mcveigh Essay On Hypocrisy”

    -->

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *