17-02-2019, 04:27 PM
(This post was last modified: 17-02-2019, 07:40 PM by David Andrews.)
Peter,
Who asked you to prove anything?
Actually, I was looking for opinions other than yours. I won't go into the reasons why, but some will understand.
Personally, I think the answer I worked out in my last post is accurate: the Clinton admin concentrated on forced or sponsored acts of domestic terrorism in order to distract the public, and some law enforcement and intelligence operatives, from what was "developing" on the foreign terrorism horizon, and would be unleashed on us as soon as the administrations changed. "Unleashed" through the same combination of force and sponsorship, to be sure - that's a demonstrable intelligence and law enforcement modus operandi by now.
If you've read about relations between FBI, CIA and the NSC during the years 1993-2001, this is one of the conclusions you take away.
Current events in terrorism are so painful to me that sometimes I have to approach things from the angle of absurdist comedy to get a handle on them. I learned my absurdism not so much from Albert Camus, as from Thomas Pynchon and Joseph Heller, who wrote at a little distance from World War II. I still think that Heller's presentation of a dealmaking, moneymaking plan for the Luftwaffe to pay the USAF to bomb a US airfield is a prescient political idea that we've seen enacted later, in the terror game.
I come here to be educated, to ask others' opinions, to try to find new factual and procedural insights into the 1990s terror fronts as a run-up to the "Big Event" of 9/11. I'm interested in writing and publishing on this period. I doubt that it will be in a form that pleases you.
There isn't much renewable information on DPF about topics like OKC, the first WTC bombing, TWA 800, or the career of FBI counterterrorism chief John O'Neill (which deserves re-examination for the assumptions we hold about it) - so when a new post in a related thread pops up, I try to stir some interest that I can learn from.
That's all I'm after. I'm fishing, not hunting, and the DPF is safe with me.
You seem worried, however... Should no one respond to the threads here? If you look back on the DPF, Seamus Coogan called me a troll or a plant for asking questions in my posts. If you study my habits, however, I ask questions on topics where there isn't a terrible amount of expertise on display. And I'm always about purposes and intentions. Because - as you so kindly suggested - I can get my names and facts from books and documents.
Instead, I'm looking for meaning. I'm looking for why it's necessary for people to die, and for the living to be manipulated.
I'm interested also in why anyone in government, law enforcement or intelligence would go along with state-sponsored murder. For a shitty paycheck? For career advancement? Out of a false sense of power? Out of fear? Motives are important. Tendencies shouldn't be forgotten.
One of the current memes in JFK research is that the How and the Who aren't important, but the Why is paramount. Peter - are you worried that I'm asking Why? too much?
I'm worried that I rather exposed myself too much here, for your pleasure.
Who asked you to prove anything?
Actually, I was looking for opinions other than yours. I won't go into the reasons why, but some will understand.
Personally, I think the answer I worked out in my last post is accurate: the Clinton admin concentrated on forced or sponsored acts of domestic terrorism in order to distract the public, and some law enforcement and intelligence operatives, from what was "developing" on the foreign terrorism horizon, and would be unleashed on us as soon as the administrations changed. "Unleashed" through the same combination of force and sponsorship, to be sure - that's a demonstrable intelligence and law enforcement modus operandi by now.
If you've read about relations between FBI, CIA and the NSC during the years 1993-2001, this is one of the conclusions you take away.
Current events in terrorism are so painful to me that sometimes I have to approach things from the angle of absurdist comedy to get a handle on them. I learned my absurdism not so much from Albert Camus, as from Thomas Pynchon and Joseph Heller, who wrote at a little distance from World War II. I still think that Heller's presentation of a dealmaking, moneymaking plan for the Luftwaffe to pay the USAF to bomb a US airfield is a prescient political idea that we've seen enacted later, in the terror game.
I come here to be educated, to ask others' opinions, to try to find new factual and procedural insights into the 1990s terror fronts as a run-up to the "Big Event" of 9/11. I'm interested in writing and publishing on this period. I doubt that it will be in a form that pleases you.
There isn't much renewable information on DPF about topics like OKC, the first WTC bombing, TWA 800, or the career of FBI counterterrorism chief John O'Neill (which deserves re-examination for the assumptions we hold about it) - so when a new post in a related thread pops up, I try to stir some interest that I can learn from.
That's all I'm after. I'm fishing, not hunting, and the DPF is safe with me.
You seem worried, however... Should no one respond to the threads here? If you look back on the DPF, Seamus Coogan called me a troll or a plant for asking questions in my posts. If you study my habits, however, I ask questions on topics where there isn't a terrible amount of expertise on display. And I'm always about purposes and intentions. Because - as you so kindly suggested - I can get my names and facts from books and documents.
Instead, I'm looking for meaning. I'm looking for why it's necessary for people to die, and for the living to be manipulated.
I'm interested also in why anyone in government, law enforcement or intelligence would go along with state-sponsored murder. For a shitty paycheck? For career advancement? Out of a false sense of power? Out of fear? Motives are important. Tendencies shouldn't be forgotten.
One of the current memes in JFK research is that the How and the Who aren't important, but the Why is paramount. Peter - are you worried that I'm asking Why? too much?
I'm worried that I rather exposed myself too much here, for your pleasure.