I think you all have:
A) Been led astray by a hijack about moral equivalency
B) Completely missed why McVeigh’s actions were unreasonable.
McVeigh’s actions were unreasonable in response to Ruby Ridge and Waco. Agreed. But they were unreasonable because there was no means by which they could accomplish any useful goal. In fact, McVeigh’s actions led to an American society in which there are more and greater - but perhaps more subtle - restrictions on freedom and a more powerful, all-encompassing federal government.
The problem with terrorists - and McVeigh was clearly a terrorist by any definition - is that most of them are romantics. They believe that by one or few specific actions they can affect change or ameliorate some real or imagined wrong in their lives and their society. Did McVeigh believe that by destroying the Murrah building in OKC that he would magically change the amount of power and authority the US government had over people’s lives? Or did he believe it would lead to a popular uprising that would thwart and restrict that power moving forward? Or was it - and wiki appears to indicate - that McVeigh was just after payback for Waco and Ruby Ridge?
In any event, blowing up one building is an ineffective means of achieving any of those goals. It demonstrates McVeigh’s irrationality - or lack of ability to think an issue through - that he might believe any of those would help.
Now, in his bio, McVeigh says he also contemplated direct assassination of Janet Reno instead of blowing up the Murrah Building. This, indeed, could have sent a clearer message with less dead children. It would have directly connected his issue with the actions he took. I’m in no way advocating assassination but it would have been a clearer line. And the line between the decisions made at Ruby Ridge and Waco are in no way influenced by a bunch of dead people in OKC.
Doesn’t mean it would have worked. But it’s easier to see a vox populi chain of reasoning for it.