Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 12 of 12

Thread: A Noble Lie - OK City Bombing.

  1. #11


    Quote Originally Posted by David Andrews View Post
    I mean, um, just looking at A Noble Lie, plus taking into account the books and other film I've watched on OKC...this seems like a very elaborate, costly, and wide-ranging operation to take on for informational purposes related to a future 9/11 attack, especially when data was gathered during the WTC truck bombing in February 1993.

    I dunno - did I watch Three Days of the Condor too many times, and am brainwashed into looking for purposes? Whatever white supremacist/armed religious cult momentum the Clinton admin DOJ was obsessed with seems to have died out once the Bush regime returned.

    So, why OKC? For instance, what did our law enforcement and intelligence agencies get out of it?

    I mean, is this a characterological theme thing? Were the Clintons obsessed with internal redneck terror (Waco, Ruby Ridge, OKC) while the Bushes were more internationalist in their pursuit of Iraq and Afghanistan?

    Did the Clinton admin studiously avoid international conflict (apart from an aspirin factory missile strike) in order to let the Bushes take the global low road? Or was the internal threat under Clinton a form of time serving that allowed Al Qaeda to "develop" while our law enforcement and intelligence services were "occupied" chasing cornpone bad guys within our shores, throwing a shout-out in passing to the Philippines terror network as a segue into the crimes of the next admin?

    Personally, I find your repeated questioning 'what was gained by dark forces out of OKC' annoying. You pose it as if you are on the side of most others here, but I think that is only a posture - and you are really trying to cast doubt on those who would question the official versions of OKC, 911 and by extension, most other deep events. I am not amused at the style of your posts. If you have what you think is a different analysis, kindly do it without the movie analogies, the cornpone bad guy allusions - but seriously. I think you have nothing to offer but doubt and that is your goal here [disguised]. For me, you do not deserve my time and energy explaining further the importance of OKC [or 911-ver.I and ver.II - or other deep events. I can't take your 'doubt' and 'questioning' serious when it repeats and repeats and repeats without what I consider any serious alternatives - only 'clever' diversions and asides. I'm starting to get the feeling of listening to a troll who is cleverly posing as a skeptic of the official versions. Stop asking questions, do you own homework and work and make your own decisions. Continuously asking others to prove X or Y to you is the work of a troll or a lazy person. IMHO.

    McVey did it all himself, with a fertilizer bomb. There was no Individual #2 [and others] and no pre-planted bombs in the building, no looking the other way by the police and federal agents investigating, no conspiracy to assist the bombing by the FBI and other agencies and entities, no cover-up, no rush to kill and thus silence McVey. It had no training value for future mass bombings of buildings and had no purpose to test reactions of the public and media - so as to better manipulate them in future and larger false-flag operations. No pre-knowledge by some that the bombing occurred either. So, now you have your answers and can stop bothering the forum with your petulant and childish questioning over and over again......and your diversionary tactics which I think attempt to serve another agenda entirely. Looking back at your older posts, which are usually quaint or 'cute' two sentence comments, without much substance, I really begin to wonder how serious you are on this analysis of the deep state operations or whether you care to act as an agent of doubt and of turning the serious into a circus.
    Last edited by Peter Lemkin; 02-17-2019 at 07:38 AM.
    If there is no struggle there is no progress. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will.” - Frederick Douglass
    "Let me issue and control a nation's money and I care not who writes the laws. - Mayer Rothschild
    "Civil disobedience is not our problem. Our problem is civil obedience! People are obedient in the face of poverty, starvation, stupidity, war, and cruelty. Our problem is that grand thieves are running the country. That's our problem!" - Howard Zinn

  2. Default


    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.
    Last edited by David Andrews; 02-17-2019 at 06:40 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts