I'm not disputing that the US didn't ask him to commit an act of terror against itself. but it did ask him to do terrible things. in the context of the post we are replying to ("YouTube is a private organization that _is_ being used as a platform by organizations like ISIS to radicalize random individuals who then go out and kill innocent people"), I think it's a bit reductionist to put too much value in military vs. paramilitary or "the military told him to do X." all I mean is that in the quoted post, "ISIS" can be replaced with a number of military and paramilitary forces throughout the world and the statement will still ring true in different populations. youtube shouldn't target specific organizations that they think are bad. they should apply more general rules that also apply to organizations that they think are good.

and no, mcveigh did not act alone. he conspired with terry nichols and michael fortier, who also served and met in the military. according to his biography, mcveigh took joy in being ordered to slaughter surrendered prisoners. did the military radicalize him?

further: did it train him in the skills he needed to successfully carry out such an atrocious act? was he provided adequate care when he returned home from iraq and kuwait, broken? to what extent is the military responsible? should youtube ban anti-US videos in general? does an organization need to be on a particular US government-sanctioned list to be considered a terrorist organization by youtube? the list of questions goes on.

overall, what I'm trying to express is that it is bad for youtube to make decisions based on politics. if they want to make decisions on morals, that's fine, but apply it to everyone, not just ISIS. either that, or allow them all.