There is a third possibility. The FBI and others knew ME terrorists were involved in the OKC bombing, but covered it up because they had been persuaded that (for whatever reason) this was the right thing to do. In my opinion, the truth is probably a mixture of the second and third possibilities.
If I take out the words "bad guys" Option two and three are the same.
So I guess the only disageement then would be can covering up the murder of 168 people ever be the right thing.
I am happy with removing the words "bad guys" and sticking with two groups who believe there was a Middle Eastern connection, group one believes the FBI knows nothing about Middle Eastern involvement and group two believes the FBI covered up Middle Eastern involvement.
Another possible difference is whether the FBI, rightly or wrongly, thought it was the right thing.
But also, I will admit I can conceive of circumstances under which such a coverup in 1995 and thereafter might have been justifiable. I cannot really conceive of circumstances under which it would be justifiable after 9/11.
The grand jury said that after hearing 117 witnesses and examining thousands of exhibits, "we can state with assurance that we do not believe that the federal government had prior knowledge that this horrible terrorist attack was going to happen
Prior knowledge was just one of the theories the grand jurors investigated and debunked. They found no credible evidence that the bombing was linked to white supremacists or foreign terrorists and they found no additional conspirators.
We cannot affirmatively state that absolutely no one else was involved in the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building. However we have not been presented with or uncovered information sufficient to indict any additional conspirators