Thanks, I didn't look down far enough. So he went to church as a kid then decided he was agnostic. It had nothing to do with the bombing. I found this on your Wikipedia link.
Timothy McVeigh's Letter to Fox News
Thursday, April 26, 2001
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following letter has been authenticated and was sent to Fox News Correspondent Rita Cosby. The opening statement was a photocopied statement in McVeigh's writing. The question-and-answer section following it is clearly an original version in McVeigh's writing.
Original story at:
FOXNews.com - McVeigh's Apr. 26 Letter to Fox News - U.S. & World
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regardless of your or my personal opinion of Timothy McVeigh and his act of war against the Murrah Federal Building and occupants, his letter to Fox News is one for the history books. Please remember the famous parable that "Those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it." Doc.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 '80's; culminating in the Waco incident, federal actions grew increasingly militaristic and violent, to the point where at Waco, our government - like the Chinese - was deploying tanks against its own citizens.
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 the 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)