Posted on 03/21/2002 1:17:24 PM PST by OKCSubmariner
Edited on 04/22/2004 12:32:57 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
I attended the execution of Tim McVeigh and I had no doubt it was the right thing to do
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
This is an excellent observation and something that could have happened. Unfortunately, it will be difficult to pursue further.
OKCSub, see reply #14.
Nita, you do see the linkage with John Doe 2 to both events, don't you?
This is a serious charge that renders me speechless.
I don't know if that be necessarily true hang 'em. Years ago I had a young chinese fellow come to me for employ. He had come to america on a visa/work permit for a company he worked for in china. He was here to promote his company and to gain contracts for his company in china. Well he decided slip away, stay here, and melt into our society. He was very bright and well educated and most affluent in english. He had a wife and child in china. Yet inspite of his obvious brilliance and education he was applying to me for the lowest most menial laborous tasked position in my org. Yep, you got it, janitor. Oh well, I hired him. And he stayed with me for over two years. The best damn janitor I ever had. He went on to get his papers straightened out to become a citizen and was finally able to get his wife and son here...went on to school to get his MBA as he worked as a janitor ...went on to land a job with a major computer firm making the big bucks. My point?
One day I found myself having a serious political discussion with my chinese janitor. Afterall, he was interesting to try to figure out. So this particular day I was telling him how we elect our presidents and how the electoral college works. He looked me straight in the eye and said, "you just believe that you elect your presidents." (Now this was pre Clinton era.) Anyway, I found myself unable to convince him otherwise...he held his ground. Today, especially since 8 years of Clinton, I can't help but wonder if he wasn't right.
Thanks for the detail tie, Fred. I'm such a slow typist that I tend to omit some of the supporting info in replies of more than three sentences. That and Old Age is my Fall Back Position these days, and I'm Stickin' to it. ;-)
There are more tie-ins, but they'd take more lines than I can handle in one typing session. Maybe "Speak n' Type" or something......................
And there's much detail on this thread ---- http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/644787/posts
Particularly flaky and scary is the assertion, without any backup whatsoever, that FBI agents deliberately impeded efforts to track the WTC attackers. Scary, because it 1) scandalizes people, 2) impugns Free Republic by association, jacking up the tinfoil-hat factor, and 3) dismays honest, concerned people to no good effect.
Look, if the FBI were running down umpty-jillion leads, such as they had both after OKC and after WTC, if people were looking squinty-eyed at Arabs all over the place and offering to off them if they so much as opened their mouths with criticism of the U.S., USG, or American culture or customs, what do you think the FBI would do to try to keep the lynch mobs from forming, but zip their lips until the separation of wheat from chaff could proceed?
Don't confuse a zipped lip working on an investigation with a co-conspirator, just because he won't dish and doesn't want Congress leaking his half-baked, raw leads all over The New York Times.
BTW, a medium-sized hole in the thesis appears immediately with the assertion that "John Doe #2" surfaced as a baggage-handler at Boston Logan: Mohamed Atta and the other attackers didn't need any help in the baggage area: they had their weapons with them in their carryon bags, and they abandoned their other baggage in their rental car.
I agree that The Rapist used OKC politically, and the press gave him a pass on politicizing a very great tragedy, which they wouldn't (and shouldn't) have done for X41 or Ronald Reagan. I agree that The Rapist went to OKC to do three things: console the bereft, promise justice to the scandalized, and to put Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich behind the wheel of the truck. And I agree with you, the tragedy resuscitated The Rapist's political fortunes, and played fantastically well into the hands of the media hate-puppet campaign already under way against Gingrich.
But this......this is just too, too flaky to touch. Guys, please don't drag stuff out like this when it's half-baked. You only tip your hand and give the liberals something to demonize conservatives with, that we all wear tinfoil hats. It's important for responsible people to know, and for you to keep the pressure on them by demanding that the unspecified leads be worked and the Nichols/McVeigh case be broken down and solved -- Terry Nichols is still alive, and may be under a death sentence after his state trial, so there is a live eyewitness to work with. But, please, don't throw everyone's business, together with all the red herrings and coincidences, out in the street. You just make Freepers look foolish.
Of course, the FBI has never been infiltrated or corrupted by a foriegn power or by organized crime. That NEVER happens.
This is, in fact more plausible than some black helicopter theory of the motive behind things.
Yes, surely the FBI deserves some slack, because despite it's complicity in murder in Boston an in about a dozen other recent cases dealing evidence tampering, manslaughter, graft, etc. The FBI would never impede an investigation which might illuminate even more tarnish on their badges. No my goodness, never.
The Brotherhood, with a few outstanding exceptions has chosen to work together in empathy with the purpose of concealing Wrongdoing by their Agency. It has been proven over and over. When the Agency was ultimately subordinate to the Clinton Criminals, no one that now wants to give them a pass on these matters had a problem with Condemning them.
They now are responsible, technically at least, to a new President who many on this forum choose to blindly support. The Switch doesn't flick on and off that easy in Real Life.
It's the issue of how, once again, the "NWO Conspiracy" topic gets thrown into the mix, thus making it extremely easy for most people to just roll their eyes and discount any possible notion of Arab/foreign involvement in the 1995 OKC bombing. It's the issue of how, if this thread takes the typical "NWO" route that is so common at FR these days, then normally-rational people will take one look, get disgusted, and then dismiss the OKC facts entirely. When people start talking about the much larger issue of their viewpoints on the Patriot Act and how they think Dubya is part of a Grand Conspiracy to enslave us all, you'll needlessly lose at least 75% of your readership. I've said this for years, too, so it's not anything new.
Stick to the facts and leave out everything that is superfluous to the matter at hand. One of the reasons we managed to dig out the facts on the Akal/Teg Security threads was because we didn't get sidetracked. We didn't give the shills any ammunition to jump on the thread and use against us and start screaming "NutWing!" Facts are facts and deserve the chance to stand alone without everyone's opinions about Waco, the NWO, et al getting thrown into the mix. It just muddies the water and makes it too easy for the fence-sitters to dismiss the facts at hand.
It's always easier for me to just avoid the threads that start going down the NWO road, but this article and this topic deserves a closer look. Al Hussain Hussaini as John Doe2 deserves close scrutiny and the benefit of an open mind from everyone who reads this thread. But it's a good bet that most people who pride themselves on being part of the "Non-NutWing" crowd will stop reading once they start seeing the Bush-bashing Bilderberger talk.
Look, think of it from a practical standpoint, okay? Throw out any emotional attachments to the overall NWO topic and examine it from a purely practical and egocentric standpoint. And it may help to compare this with people who lose loved ones, go through the grieving process, then get stuck in the Denial Stage. I think that analogy may fit nicely.
The goal is to help them get through their denial so they can face reality, do what needs to be done and then get on with life. But you can't rush it and try to cram it down their throats; a little finesse is in order if you want to keep their attention. Their denial mechanism is a crutch and is helping them cope with the unthinkable. It may be a crutch, but it's a useful crutch and one that is necessary at that point in time. You don't want to just yank it out from under them and cram "reality" down their throats just to make your point. Instead, you take baby steps. You only give them what they can handle at that moment; otherwise they get totally overwhelmed, shut you out completely, and walk away. You only give them what they can safely handle at that moment in time.
This article by John Gibson is about John Doe2 and his possible connection to OKC and WTC2. It's not about Waco. It's not about Ruby Ridge. It's not about Flight 800. It's not about the Patriot Act. And it's sure as hell not about how Dubya is a secret member of the Bilderberger Gang and how we're all doomed for transdermal computer chip implants and the "666 Mark-of-the-Beast" on our foreheads in bright red, tattooed ink unless we get the "evil FBI" to admit they covered up the truth in the OKC bombing.
By bringing in the NWO stuff, Freepers do John Gibson, Larry Johnson, Jayna Davis, Dan Vogel, David Shippers and all the people working behind the scenes a huge disservice. You make them vulnerable to anyone who wants to scream "NutWing!" and anyone with ulterior motives who wants to marginalize the people who are willing to look at all the facts. I saw former CIA agent Larry Johnson on Monday morning's "Fox News and Friends" and almost dropped out of my chair. In fact, I got so excited that I yelled at my husband to turn on the TV in the other room. Mr. Johnson appeared very credible and marked the first time I've seen this on a credible news show. He actually quoted the FBI agent (Vogel?), which speaks volumes. At the time, I told my husband that either Larry Johnson was egregiously violating a precious confidence and will now rightfully get sued for slander, or there are people in the FBI/CIA/Pentagon/?? who are trying to make the truth known and this is a huge step in the right direction.
I do feel bad for being rather sarcastic up there in #20 when I first threw this out and I apologize for that. But I think it's an accurate reflection of the frustration some of us feel. Or maybe I'm all alone in this thinking, I don't know. If I am, it may be because the other 80% stopped reading when the Bush-bashing/NWO talk started and once again threw the baby out with the bathwater before getting through their denial.
Bottom line (finally): I just think it's wiser to change people's minds and open up their eyes by using an incremental, "carrot & stick" approach instead of trying to cram the carrot down their throats. It's much wiser and has a higher chance of being successful. Strategically speaking, of course.
Just my opinion, for what it's worth. :-)
Your concerns are reasonable and well put. But I am not ready to write off David Schippers or Larry Johnson as flakes just yet.
You will notice in the transcript that Schippers refers to certain Arab American FBI agents who are in his words a "Brick wall".
If you read the entire transcript and other interviews by Schippers on Alex Jones you will find that Schippers believes that tracking Arab types before and after the OKC and 9/11 attacks was impeded by the "brick wall" of these Arab American FBI agents.
Is Schippers correct about this-I do not know because I have not seen his proof. But he is working with a handful of active FBI agents and former CIA counter terror officials who would know. He would look really bad in front of these FBI agents and CIA officials if he came out and publicly make such an assertion if he were wrong.
I believe it is important to at least post what Schippers has said given his stature and his postion to know.
"DS: ......When you talk about political correctness, putting at risk the United States, you are going to see situations where there are Arab Americans, or Arab Arab Americans, we double it up - they are more Arab than American, working for the FBI. And wait until you hear those stories.
JQ: Well, OK, so we do have Middle Eastern operatives in the FBI.
DS: I don't know if they are operatives, I'm not calling them operatives, I'm saying that...
JQ: Well they are operatives for the FBI.
DS: Well, yeah, they're agents, special agents, working in the terrorist area.
JQ: Exactly, so they can indeed infiltrate this sort of thing. And you are telling me that they are hitting a brick wall, too?
DS: Wait until - no, no no, who the Arab agents?
JQ: Yeah.
DS: No, they're not hitting any brick wall. THEY ARE THE BRICK WALL. You'll find out. It's coming out. I can't do it now but it's ready to blow."
There are two ways to investigate something, including Al Hussain Hussaini and the John Doe2 issue:
Our preconceived notions are all different. Why clutter up the topic and alienate people along the way?
Can somebody post the Hussaini picture next to the John Doe 2 sketch?
I knew where you where coming from, Nitz, I just wanted to bring this thread back on topic. I wish NDCORUP was still with us.
However, I will continue to criticise defects in Bush policies on China, Cuba, legalizing illegal immigration, CFR, sharing operational details of US missile defense with Russia and China, unilateral disarmament of too many of our nuclear misile delivery systems, flaws in the Patriot act, pressuring Israel to give land and Jerusalem to the PLO, blocking and manipulating (sent Snider, Tenet's deputy)at least some open Congressional hearings on the failures of US intell leading to the 9/11 attacks.
I have noticed that many defenders of Bush use as an argument when I criticise Bush policies that I must be a NWO conspiracy nut for even making the cricisms on factual grounds even when I do not introduce any motive on Bush's part.
The Bush supporters can appear narrow minded and dictatorial (even when they are not) during the times when they improperly label Bush critics NWO conspiracy nuts (the ones who do not deserve the label)and only increase suspicions of what Bush's motives are for the things I and others (Conservative Repubs) criticize Bush for.
I do believe that many of the mistakes Bush has made with policiy decisions recommended by Ahscroft, Mueller, Rice and Powell and Scowcroft has helped the NWO agenda even if Bush is not part of the NWO crowd and does not intend to help them or their agenda. That is a fair argument to raise that does not deserve a NWO conspiracy nut label.
There is no doubt that there is a World Governance (NWO, New World Order, World Government,etc.) with a clear well established agenda and a presence in the US, in the EU, in corporations and in COngress and in the US government. Stating that does not make one a NWO conspiracy nut. It is fact.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.