Was Timothy James McVeigh a Scapegoat?

[adbasque]

I found it rather strange that T-M was arrested and kept on a death row for 6 years, and executed him 3 months prior to the 9/11 attack.

Did they kill him so he wouldn't reveal anything, did he know too much?

They accused him of taking revenge for the waco massacre, was it really that?

Military career

In May 1988, McVeigh enlisted in the U.S. Army.[13] Michel and Herbeck comment on the process of brutalization he went through as a recruit:

Was he brainwashed while still in the army?
We know that they use several techniques to make someone do something and he won't even remember.


I am trying to find the link between T-M 9/11 and waco.
I am sure there is a link.

[bard]

They have a whole system on how to recruit folks like him. The person must fit a specific
psychological profile -> strong mother, missing father (broken home), solitary fellow.
In all such operations (JFK, Oklahoma City bombing, 911) they arrange to have a ready-to-blame scapegoat, in case the operation somehow fails. In reality, the dirty job is done in the background by special teams (Mossad, US Army/USMC intelligence etc.).

Hear more here - Kay Griggs talks
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-341031042963487862

movie info:

Kay Griggs, wife of colonel George Griggs, USMC (retired USMC Commandant): 29th Commandant of the Marine Corps, found her husband's diary, which contains details of homosexual blackmail in the top ranks of the US Marine Corps and names leading politicians and military leaders. Kay Griggs's information about the US government also comes from observations and people she met. She exposes initiation rituals, the raping of young men and blackmail and murders to keep people quiet. Much of this, according to Griggs, is related to secret society activity and she names figures like Henry Kissinger and a string of other top government individuals. This is part 1 of 2 of the full interview

[eternalwheel]

OKLAHOMA CITY BOMBING

In the bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, we know now that there were at least four bombs and two teams at work. All we hear about in the media is the one truck bomb detonated in the street; but, according to the testimony of Brigadier General Benton Partin, a military explosive expert, there is no possibility that a fertilizer bomb on the street could have brought that building down. There was a second demolition team that apparently had security clearance to get into the building and was able to strap high-impact explosives around the sustaining pillars, and that is what caused the building to collapse. There was at least one more bomb that did not go off as planned, and it was removed and de-fused by the local bomb squad. This was reported live on Oklahoma City television stations as it happened, and it is fortunate that we have a video copy of those reports because, after the FBI arrived on the scene and took charge of media information, no more mention was ever made of the other bombs. Had this additional bomb been detonated as planned, it is possible that the entire building would have fallen, exactly as with the World Trade Towers several years later.

The FBI had undercover agents working inside many of the terrorist organizations and knew almost everything they did or planned to do. Carol Howe was one of them. She had posed as a loyal member of what was called W.A.R., the White Aryan Resistance, which was a white supremacist organization linked to neo-Nazis and the KKK. Timothy McVeigh, who was convicted and executed for his role in the bombing of the Murrah Building, was a close friend of Andreas Strassmeir, who was one of the leaders of this group. After the bombing, Miss. Howe testified that she had reported to her FBI superiors that members of this group were planning to blow up federal buildings, including the one in Oklahoma City. This did not fit with the FBI’s story that it had no advance warning about the Murrah Building, so the agency responded by claiming that Howe was not an informant at the time she claimed to have made her reports and that she was emotionally unstable. They called her "the poster girl" for "conspiracy theorists." Then they actually charged her for committing such crimes as possession of an illegal explosive device and conspiracy to make a bomb threat. In other words, they attempted to put her in prison for doing exactly the things she was expected to do as an undercover agent. It was an incredible betrayal. Fortunately she was able to prove to a jury that every one of her claims was true and that it was the FBI that had lied on every count. Clearly, this was no longer the same FBI that operated under J. Edgar Hoover during World War II.

The Grand Deception
A Second Look at the War on Terrorism
http://www.silverbearcafe.com/deception.html

[ryanhodgson]

If you google a Bill Cooper video (I don't know which one it is it think it might be the long one about his history) he talks about meeting TM once and he thought he was mind controlled. If you research Bill Cooper, he new what he was talking about.

[aldrin]

Heres the link to Bill Coopers Vid! (3rd post down for the full vid)

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=70006

[ronisron]

I believe he was involved, but ultimately he was a scapegoat. If you break it all down and leave out the MSM details, he was US Military. So were his associates.

I still remember the first CNN News reports; "they are looking for 3 men of middle eastern origin seen fleeing the scene in a pick up truck..."

[adbasque]

I believe he was involved, but ultimately he was a scapegoat. If you break it all down and leave out the MSM details, he was US Military. So were his associates.

I still remember the first CNN News reports; "they are looking for 3 men of middle eastern origin seen fleeing the scene in a pick up truck..."

Probably Mossad Agents :rolleyes:

[entrangermercenary]

Think you will find TM is regarded as a hero by many millitia groups in the good old USA . SAS were at the waco siege advising the yanks but were politely told to fuck off !!

[opulentview]

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/atlantean_conspiracy/atlantean_conspiracy23.htm

Another strange “coincidence” to note is that just two years earlier in 1993, Martin Keating, the brother of Oklahoma’s Governor, Frank Keating, wrote a novel called “The Final Jihad.”



In his book, a man named Tom McVeigh bombs an Oklahoma City federal building!

Another strange “coincidence” to note is that just two years earlier in 1993, Martin Keating, the brother of Oklahoma’s Governor, Frank Keating, wrote a novel called “The Final Jihad.”



In his book, a man named Tom McVeigh bombs an Oklahoma City federal building!



Linda Cavanaugh, from NBC’s Oklahoma affiliate KFOR, even reported on this oddity:

“The News Channel has learned of another strange development. Apparently, before the bombing, Governor Frank Keating’s brother, Martin, had been working on a novel about a terrorist bombing in Oklahoma City. Stranger still, one of the characters in the novel was named Thomas McVeigh.”

Also adding to the mystery, Martin Keating dedicated his book to “the Knights of the Secret Circle.”



Could he be referring to the Knights of the Milner-Rhodes Round Table secret societies?

The book came out in 1996 according to Amazon, but he had to be working on it for awhile. Either way, it's worth investigating.

[siatd]

I am trying to find the link between T-M 9/11 and waco.
I am sure there is a link.

You may want to look into McVeigh's apparent co-bomber Terry Nichols. In 1994-5 he visited the Philippines several times, and according to Edwin Angeles met with freelancing terrorist sociopath Ramzi Yousef. Yousef built the WTC 93 bomb, which was an Urea Nitrate Fuel Oil device. The McVeigh Oklahoma City bomb was an Ammonia Nitrate Fuel Oil device. Both were apparently delivered in yellow Ryder trucks. Similarly, witnesses said that McVeigh was not alone, and identified him with a darker skinned, possibly Arab man who bears no resemblance to Terry Nichols.

Edwin Angeles was an undercover Philippines National Police operative who helped found the Abu Sayyaf Group, one of two major Islamist groups in the area (the other being the MILF), and who was for some years the number 2 in the Abu Sayyaf organisation.

Ramzi Yousef was the originator of the Bojinka plot (though it is reported that Angeles helped him) which involved hijacking planes and flying them into buildings in the US, and so for some is the origin of the 9/11 plan. Yousef is closely related to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged 9/11 mastermind.

Like I say, all worth looking at. How Waco ties in I do not know.

[adbasque]

And I am the jackass' second cousin:rolleyes:

I am sorry but the Oklahoma bombing, the WTC 93, and 9/11 are all inside jobs, all from the same people.

these people were scapegoats nothing more, Yusuf Ramzi was a cia asset

[siatd]

And I am the jackass' second cousin:rolleyes:

I am sorry but the Oklahoma bombing, the WTC 93, and 9/11 are all inside jobs, all from the same people.

these people were scapegoats nothing more, Yusuf Ramzi was a cia asset

I think you need to take another look at your history. The WTC bombing cell was headed by the Blind Sheikh, right? He only got into the country because the CIA or someone else put in a good word. Similarly, many of the cell were trained by Ali Mohamed, who was almost definitely CIA protected as he worked for the US Army and later the FBI. The cell was monitored by Emad Salem (who may have also been involved in building the bomb, if his tapes with his FBI handlers are to be believed) who may or may not have had intelligence connections beyond his known role with the FBI.

However, Ramzi wasn't working for the CIA, or at least there's no evidence of that. This is a guy who built bombs for almost anyone who was willing to pay him, and nearly blew himself up on a couple of occasions. An Al Qaeda member he is not, I'll go that far, but he was a loon. A useful pawn who rubbed up against covert operatives from time to time, but not an asset in the intelligence sense of the word.

[adbasque]

I think you need to take another look at your history. The WTC bombing cell was headed by the Blind Sheikh, right?

Wrong my friend, it was the same people who pulled off 9/11, scapegoats nothing more.


He only got into the country because the CIA or someone else put in a good word. Similarly, many of the cell were trained by Ali Mohamed, who was almost definitely CIA protected as he worked for the US Army and later the FBI. The cell was monitored by Emad Salem (who may have also been involved in building the bomb, if his tapes with his FBI handlers are to be believed) who may or may not have had intelligence connections beyond his known role with the FBI.

you're looking at the end tale, I am looking at he ones right behind these so called terrorists, the big terrorist is the Elite, Cia, mossad, MI5 and so on and many other secret agencies.
you're stating what millions of people saw on TV, I am stating what's behind it all.


However, Ramzi wasn't working for the CIA, or at least there's no evidence of that. This is a guy who built bombs for almost anyone who was willing to pay him, and nearly blew himself up on a couple of occasions. An Al Qaeda member he is not, I'll go that far, but he was a loon. A useful pawn who rubbed up against covert operatives from time to time, but not an asset in the intelligence sense of the word.

He worked for the CIA, under which contract we don't know, he maybe build bombs, yes, but the true terrorists are his employers.

Yes you're right there, maybe not an asset as such but a useful loon they use whenever they needed a job done, maybe on a contract or job basis.

CIA is the biggest enemy of the American people, we agree on that?
I am not mentioning the bankers, all of the ones above.

[siatd]

Wrong my friend, it was the same people who pulled off 9/11, scapegoats nothing more.

I think you are naive. Like I say, the spiritual leader of the group was protected by the CIA, the trainer was probably protected by the CIA, and they were monitored by an FBI informant. This isn't a false flag scenario, it's a case of provocateuring. There's a distinction. I've researched A LOT of state-sponsored terrorist attacks and it is nothing like as simple as just saying 'the CIA are the real terrorists, the others are just scapegoats'. Groups can be infiltrated, radicalised, militarised and provoked. If you read the US Army field manual 30-31 appendix B on 'destabilisation operations' they explain this quite clearly.

you're looking at the end tale, I am looking at he ones right behind these so called terrorists, the big terrorist is the Elite, Cia, mossad, MI5 and so on and many other secret agencies.

This is horseshit, quite frankly. You're just parroting what millions of others say. It's unsophisticated and not rooted in proper research.

you're stating what millions of people saw on TV, I am stating what's behind it all.

Again, nonsense. You are just repeating the 'truth behind the story' dualism of the Matrix movies and so much of the conspiracy theory movement. No doubt next you'll be telling me to 'wake up' and that I'm just following what mainstream media tell me.

Don't insult my intelligence, or I'll insult yours back far, far worse.

He worked for the CIA, under which contract we don't know, he maybe build bombs, yes, but the true terrorists are his employers.

There is no evidence Ramzi worked for the CIA. This is just wishful thinking on your part. A great many terrorists are state-sponsored, but not all of them. Again, naive.

Yes you're right there, maybe not an asset as such but a useful loon they use whenever they needed a job done, maybe on a contract or job basis.

CIA is the biggest enemy of the American people, we agree on that?
I am not mentioning the bankers, all of the ones above.

I'm not American, and I have no interest in hashing about answers to questions like 'who is the greatest enemy of the American people?'. It's the mindset of people like Alex Jones, and I have too much self-respect to go down such routes.

[adbasque]

I think you are naive. Like I say, the spiritual leader of the group was protected by the CIA, the trainer was probably protected by the CIA, and they were monitored by an FBI informant. This isn't a false flag scenario, it's a case of provocateuring. There's a distinction. I've researched A LOT of state-sponsored terrorist attacks and it is nothing like as simple as just saying 'the CIA are the real terrorists, the others are just scapegoats'. Groups can be infiltrated, radicalised, militarised and provoked. If you read the US Army field manual 30-31 appendix B on 'destabilisation operations' they explain this quite clearly

When they do these things and then allow them to carry out their plans, what would you call this?


This is horseshit, quite frankly. You're just parroting what millions of others say. It's unsophisticated and not rooted in proper research.

If there's one thing I don't do, is parroting, I couldn't care less what millions say, what AJ says, or what david Icke says, I analyse things myself.
Al-Queda is a creation of the CIA it is a fact, who ever operates under that flag, I am not interested in the little men who willingly or unwillingly carry out the attacks, I am more interested by the instigators, the truth is, you can't accept the fact that it has nothing to do with the Muslims.

It's not because someone's name is Yusuf or Mohamed, that makes him a muslim.
The government, state, cia whatever you want to call them are behind every single terror attack, and the biggest terror is on your liberties and freedom, taken away everyday. keep thinking the same way.


Again, nonsense. You are just repeating the 'truth behind the story' dualism of the Matrix movies and so much of the conspiracy theory movement. No doubt next you'll be telling me to 'wake up' and that I'm just following what mainstream media tell me.

I read and listen to all sorts of things then I draw my own conclusion, facts from lies.


Don't insult my intelligence, or I'll insult yours back far, far worse.

I did not insult your intelligence, and please by all means go ahead insult my intelligence, show me how far far worse you can do it, do I look like I care?



There is no evidence Ramzi worked for the CIA. This is just wishful thinking on your part. A great many terrorists are state-sponsored, but not all of them. Again, naive.
Why on earth would it be a wishful thinking? is he my relative? I couldn't care less about the name, colour, race, religion, a terrorist is a terrorist, so your argument is a complete nonsense.
The difference I look at the truth not accept what the F** media tells me, whatever the media is spreading, I look the other way because I know they are lying to me, and I knew that since I was 15 years old. get a grip mate.



I'm not American, and I have no interest in hashing about answers to questions like 'who is the greatest enemy of the American people?'. It's the mindset of people like Alex Jones, and I have too much self-respect to go down such routes.

I don't care about AJ or anybody elses theories unless I know they are true, but the CIA was always involved in everything under the sun when I say the CIA, I mean all of these secret services, who were supposed to protect us and our nation, from the evil ghost, while in fact they are the evil, they are the terrorists, think what you want and I think what I want.

we don't need to go any further in this discussion, let's just leave it at this, if you please. thank you.

[siatd]

When they do these things and then allow them to carry out their plans, what would you call this?

Provocateuring. It doesn't alleviate the responsibility of the people who actually plant the bombs, it doesn't stop them being murderers. It just means that the conspiracy to murder is larger and involves people supposedly on our side.

If there's one thing I don't do, is parroting, I couldn't care less what millions say, what AJ says, or what david Icke says, I analyse things myself.

Curious then that your opinions and argument style so directly mimics that of millions of others.

Al-Queda is a creation of the CIA it is a fact, who ever operates under that flag, I am not interested in the little men who willingly or unwillingly carry out the attacks, I am more interested by the instigators, the truth is, you can't accept the fact that it has nothing to do with the Muslims.

Tell me, when did Osama Bin Laden's original organisation of about a dozen members take place? When did Al Qaeda seize control of the MAK, the funding/recruiting operation for the Afghan Mujahideen? Who founded Al-Muhajiroun? Do you have a clue about any of this?

Your argument is self-contradictory. You say Al Qaeda is a creation of the CIA (presumably referring to the Afghan Mujahideen) yet deny it has anything to do with Muslims.

Hilarious.

It's not because someone's name is Yusuf or Mohamed, that makes him a muslim.

Ramzi wasn't really a Muslim, he certainly wasn't a Salafist like Bin Laden. He wasn't motivated by Islam.

The government, state, cia whatever you want to call them are behind every single terror attack, and the biggest terror is on your liberties and freedom, taken away everyday. keep thinking the same way.

Every single terror attack? Really, you honestly believe that there are NO people in the world who are sad, angry or crazy enough to strap a bomb to something, possibly themselves, and blow something up?

That's as unrealistic a fantasy as the notion Mohammed Atta was a Salafist.

I read and listen to all sorts of things then I draw my own conclusion, facts from lies.

I did not insult your intelligence, and please by all means go ahead insult my intelligence, show me how far far worse you can do it, do I look like I care?

I can't see you, how on earth would I know how you look? You really do just parrot whatever phrase first comes to mind, don't you?

(these are rhetorical questions)

Why on earth would it be a wishful thinking? is he my relative? I couldn't care less about the name, colour, race, religion, a terrorist is a terrorist, so your argument is a complete nonsense.

You say it has nothing to do with Muslims. Your position is that the whole thing is a front, a conspiracy, a put-up job. That is wishful thinking. There most definitely are some people in the world willing to indiscriminately slaughter people. They probably weren't responsible for 9/11, but they definitely were somewhat responsible for WTC 93.

The difference I look at the truth not accept what the F** media tells me, whatever the media is spreading, I look the other way because I know they are lying to me, and I knew that since I was 15 years old. get a grip mate.

Exceptionally predictable. Indeed, I predicted you'd write this.

Do you see how patronising it is that you're trying to give me advice on this issue when I clearly know more about it and am capable of much more sophisticated, careful opinions than easy slogans like 'Muslims have nothing to do with it' and 'the CIA are the real terrorists'?

I don't care about AJ or anybody elses theories unless I know they are true, but the CIA was always involved in everything under the sun when I say the CIA, I mean all of these secret services, who were supposed to protect us and our nation, from the evil ghost, while in fact they are the evil, they are the terrorists, think what you want and I think what I want.

The CIA (or some other secret service) is most definitely not involved in everything. Once again you're resorting to ludicrous catch-all slogans.

we don't need to go any further in this discussion, let's just leave it at this, if you please. thank you.

In other words you are backing down because you've realised you've just come in like an ass and insulted someone more informed and intelligent than you. You could have the guts and good grace to just say sorry, but instead you're running away like a sheep.

[adbasque]

Provocateuring. It doesn't alleviate the responsibility of the people who actually plant the bombs, it doesn't stop them being murderers. It just means that the conspiracy to murder is larger and involves people supposedly on our side.

Yes you're looking at it back to front, yes there are people who have been radicalised, yes there are people who are heavily brainwashed to carry out atrocities.
you want to look at individuals? one by one? go ahead, I am talking about the source of the problems.



Curious then that your opinions and argument style so directly mimics that of millions of others.
That's your own opinion, it doesn't affect me in anyway.



Tell me, when did Osama Bin Laden's original organisation of about a dozen members take place? When did Al Qaeda seize control of the MAK, the funding/recruiting operation for the Afghan Mujahideen? Who founded Al-Muhajiroun? Do you have a clue about any of this?

you obviously do, you know it all don't you, we are all dumb down here, you seem to have all the answers, are you going to talk to me about the Mujahideen who fought the Russians and funded by the CIA? they used them to keep the Russians of that region?
back in the early 80s?


Your argument is self-contradictory. You say Al Qaeda is a creation of the CIA (presumably referring to the Afghan Mujahideen) yet deny it has anything to do with Muslims.
you see how one track minded you are, my argument has nothing contradictory in it.
Al-Quaeda is still a creation of the CIA, the word itself means the base (database)

And it has nothing whatsoever to do with Islam, nothing, they fought the Russians for their invasion, Afghans always fought when they were invaded.



Hilarious.




Ramzi wasn't really a Muslim, he certainly wasn't a Salafist like Bin Laden. He wasn't motivated by Islam.

Do you know what a Salafist is or are you just repeating what you heard from people? I can give a real true definition of a Salafist, of the word itself and the meaning of it



Every single terror attack? Really, you honestly believe that there are NO people in the world who are sad, angry or crazy enough to strap a bomb to something, possibly themselves, and blow something up?

I know a lot of people who are furious but they didn't go out there and blow up other people, your argument has no substance, this is hardly an excuse, people who are fighting, for the following reasons, either their own lives are in danger, fighting to survive, fighting while their kids are starved, fighting for justice, fighting for their freedom. and above all they fight when they are desperate when they can't see a way out, every other opportunity is blocked, so he'd rather die then live without dignity.

Tell me who created all of these things to supress them and make them react and take drastic actions?


That's as unrealistic a fantasy as the notion Mohammed Atta was a Salafist.

Again when did you hear of Mohamed Atta? When was the first time you heard of him? And how did you hear of him?




I can't see you, how on earth would I know how you look? You really do just parrot whatever phrase first comes to mind, don't you?

If you care to read properly you'd see that I am not parroting, but because you're so full of yourself, and so arrogant, you think you know it all, let me tell you this, you know nothing. if there's a parrot here it's you, all of your arguments are identical to what the bullshiters were telling us from the state department.

Instead of sharing information, you result in attacking people and talking down to others, your idea of debating is "trying " to humiliate people, you haven't said shit yet.



(these are rhetorical questions)

Entitled to your crap.


You say it has nothing to do with Muslims. Your position is that the whole thing is a front, a conspiracy, a put-up job. That is wishful thinking. There most definitely are some people in the world willing to indiscriminately slaughter people. They probably weren't responsible for 9/11, but they definitely were somewhat responsible for WTC 93.

You keep repeating the same things, but you haven't yet answered my question, why would it be my wishful thinking? you keep parroting and repeating the same things over and over. (empty really)


Exceptionally predictable. Indeed, I predicted you'd write this.

So did I :rolleyes:


Do you see how patronising it is that you're trying to give me advice on this issue when I clearly know more about it and am capable of much more sophisticated, careful opinions than easy slogans like 'Muslims have nothing to do with it' and 'the CIA are the real terrorists'?

Patronising only if you have a complex of inferiority to think that way, I did not patronise you in anyway, I was giving my opinion and sharing my knowledge.


The CIA (or some other secret service) is most definitely not involved in everything. Once again you're resorting to ludicrous catch-all slogans.

That shows who's naive and who's lacking of information, I can give you pages of CIA's involvements in small and big coups in the world.



In other words you are backing down because you've realised you've just come in like an ass and insulted someone more informed and intelligent than you. You could have the guts and good grace to just say sorry, but instead you're running away like a sheep.

If there's an insult it was certainly from you, more intelligent, that's a laugh, more arrogant yes, more full of crap yes. intelligence you're miles away, intelligent people don't call themselves intelligent, they let people judge their intelligent, this is just a piece of advice for you in the future, have faith in people and let them judge your intellectual capacities.

Anyone who claims to be intelligent, it's quite the opposite, more informed of crap, that the msm is selling everywhere, it's like I was watching the news on TV :D, very informed yeah, If I wanted to stop talking to you, it's because you're boring and your arguments are outdated we've heard them more than 20 years ago.

And you dare calling other parrots, that's a good one lol, If I decided to reply to your childish comments, because I heard it before from trolls, and I didn't want to waste yet more time on this nonsense that you call information.

Keep ranting, unlike you, I am not here to insult people, I am here to share ideas, information, with all the conspiracy theorists (nuts) I am glad to be a nut, and not a follower of the state departement, tell me, do you tape their press conferences and then learn them by heart?

It sounds like it anyway, but who cares, I am done talking to you.

[siatd]

Adbasque,

I'm going to ignore some of your more redundant, repetitive comments and try once again to show the underlying assumptions in your arguments, assumptions you have received and parrotted uncritically.

Yes you're looking at it back to front, yes there are people who have been radicalised, yes there are people who are heavily brainwashed to carry out atrocities.
you want to look at individuals? one by one? go ahead, I am talking about the source of the problems.

Assumption 1: That without the CIA (et al) there would be no Islamic terrorism, because they are the 'source of the problems'.

This is patently untrue, terrorism predates intelligence services, and while there is a lot of state-sponsored terrorism there are still odd maniacs or groups of fanatics willing to murder essentially random people.

That's your own opinion, it doesn't affect me in anyway.

Assumption 2: That people have their 'own' opinions, as though thoughts and ideas are the property of individuals. That so many people believe the same things clearly refutes this.

you obviously do, you know it all don't you, we are all dumb down here, you seem to have all the answers, are you going to talk to me about the Mujahideen who fought the Russians and funded by the CIA? they used them to keep the Russians of that region?
back in the early 80s?

None of this answers any of my questions. Hence, Assumption 3: That by trying to aggressively divert the discussion you can avoid the questions I've asked to which you do not know the answers.

you see how one track minded you are, my argument has nothing contradictory in it.
Al-Quaeda is still a creation of the CIA, the word itself means the base (database)

Yes well done, you've read that widely circulated Robin Cook article in the Guardian.

And it has nothing whatsoever to do with Islam, nothing, they fought the Russians for their invasion, Afghans always fought when they were invaded.

What about the tens of thousands of international Mujahideen, recruited via organisations like Al-Muhajiroun (and its sister organisation in the Brooklyn mosques) who were trained in camps in Pakistan? They weren't Afghans. What about the three part intelligence alliance between the CIA, the Saudis and the Pakstani ISI? What about the MAK, the global funding network for the Mujahideen, which it seems Bin Laden took over shortly after the Afghan war ended?

Assumption 4: It has nothing to do with Islam, it is entirely the fault of the CIA (essentially follows from assumption 1).

Do you know what a Salafist is or are you just repeating what you heard from people? I can give a real true definition of a Salafist, of the word itself and the meaning of it

Salafism is a particular brand of Islamic ideology which is medieval and sees a return to the times of the prophet as the only way to solve the problems in the world.

I know a lot of people who are furious but they didn't go out there and blow up other people, your argument has no substance, this is hardly an excuse, people who are fighting, for the following reasons, either their own lives are in danger, fighting to survive, fighting while their kids are starved, fighting for justice, fighting for their freedom. and above all they fight when they are desperate when they can't see a way out, every other opportunity is blocked, so he'd rather die then live without dignity.

Assumption 5: There are no psychotic people in the world.

Doesn't even need refuting, is simply a naive, inexperienced, immature idea.

Again when did you hear of Mohamed Atta? When was the first time you heard of him? And how did you hear of him?

I first heard of him as an alleged 9/11 hijacker, probably on the BBC. Then I looked into his background, found out there were probably two or even three Mohammed Attas and that if there was only one he more closely resembled a US military intelligence asset than he did an Islamic terrorist.

If you care to read properly you'd see that I am not parroting, but because you're so full of yourself, and so arrogant, you think you know it all, let me tell you this, you know nothing. if there's a parrot here it's you, all of your arguments are identical to what the bullshiters were telling us from the state department.

Assumption 6: Either you're with us, or you're against us.

Ironically, you espouse the say dualistic us or them philosophy as George Bush II, thinking that because I don't subscribe to your 'it's all the CIA' story that I must believe what the State Department say, as though there are only two possible opinions.

This is, frankly, idiotic and completely beneath you. Not to mention something you've clearly picked up from somewhere else and repeated because you haven't understood it critically.

Instead of sharing information, you result in attacking people and talking down to others, your idea of debating is "trying " to humiliate people, you haven't said shit yet.

Look back on this thread and see who made it personal first.

Assumption 7: The person I'm talking to is too stupid to notice this rather childish game I'm playing of refusing to take responsibility for what I've done.

I don't think I need to tell you why this assumption is wrong.

You keep repeating the same things, but you haven't yet answered my question, why would it be my wishful thinking? you keep parroting and repeating the same things over and over. (empty really)

Referring back to assumption 1, that without the CIA there would be no terrorism, this is wishful thinking because the truth is that some people are crazy and dangerous and violent without CIA sponsorship. You're leaping from 'the CIA are responsible for SOME terrorism, so if we got rid of them we'd get rid of SOME terrorism' to the same proposition but with 'all' instead of 'some'. That's assumption 8.

Patronising only if you have a complex of inferiority to think that way, I did not patronise you in anyway, I was giving my opinion and sharing my knowledge.

You assumed my ignorance (assumption 9) and then patronised me regarding your own assumptions about what I was saying. See assumption 7.

That shows who's naive and who's lacking of information, I can give you pages of CIA's involvements in small and big coups in the world.

See assumption 8, the CIA is involved in terrorism, coups and so on, there's abundant evidence of that, but they aren't involved in everything. You're leaping from 'some' to 'all' without even realising you're doing it, and then calling me naive for pointing this out. You ass.

Keep ranting, unlike you, I am not here to insult people, I am here to share ideas, information, with all the conspiracy theorists (nuts) I am glad to be a nut, and not a follower of the state departement, tell me, do you tape their press conferences and then learn them by heart?

See assumption 6 - just because I don't subscribe to your 'all the CIA and only the CIA' view of the world does not mean I necessarily subscribe to the State Department's. This is unforgiveable stupidity on your part, and a prime example of parrotting.

It sounds like it anyway, but who cares, I am done talking to you.

You said that before. I suspect you don't mean it this time either.

[adbasque]

Adbasque,

I'm going to ignore some of your more redundant, repetitive comments and try once again to show the underlying assumptions in your arguments, assumptions you have received and parrotted uncritically.

Again, you accuse me of things you're doing lol typical, but it's ok, I am not bothered by it, I did not assume anything I pointed out facts.

You're the one doing the parroting and I have explained it to you in the previous posts, and you know I was right and that's why you've changed your tactic, in attacking me personally, well I don't have time for this.









You said that before. I suspect you don't mean it this time either.You sound very anxious to stop this, are you afraid that I might reply with something that would expose your fake arguments?

If we call them arguments, the reason I am done talking to you, is because you seem to focus on "my person" and not the topic.

See Assumption one
See Assumtion 3
See Assumtion 4

Absolute nonsense, you haven't debated the issue, you're spending most of your text on my person, and not on the issue.

I am not assuming anything I reply to what I read.

I don't have the time for bickering when you want to debate properly let me know, I have nothing to gain in attacking you or anyone, I'd rather go and do something more useful.

[siatd]

What's funniest about your responses on this thread is not the rampant assumptions underlying your arguments that you fail to recognise, nor your assertions of 'facts' that you couldn't source if your life depended on it, nor your constant attempts to divert the discussion away from the very real issue of who is responsible for terrorism.

What's funniest is your naked, unwavering hypocrisy. You repeat the same dualistic logic of many others (my way or the highway) yet accuse me of parrotting, you try to insult me then get all offended when I insult you back, you go to tremendous lengths to try to avoid answering questions and points and then accuse me of focussing on you rather than the issue.

The fact is that I can see through your arguments, all you can do with mine is throw labels at them and hope for the best someone else here comes to your rescue. You are a moron who repeats one-dimensional nonsense and tries to claim it as his own individual opinion. You are a joke. No wonder you've spent so much time on a forum founded by a guy who thinks he's the messiah and the world is run by shape-shifters. You wouldn't last five minutes discussing these views with people who don't already agree with you, so you hang around in this clique of ignorance and utter, unremitting stupidity because it's the only way to get away with having such ridiculous views and attitudes.

[adbasque]

What's funniest about your responses on this thread is not the rampant assumptions underlying your arguments that you fail to recognise, nor your assertions of 'facts' that you couldn't source if your life depended on it, nor your constant attempts to divert the discussion away from the very real issue of who is responsible for terrorism.


Just grow up, you presence on this forum is not to discuss or debate but to try and undermine, humiliate, patronise people.
You need to grow up a bit.


What's funniest is your naked, unwavering hypocrisy. You repeat the same dualistic logic of many others (my way or the highway) yet accuse me of parrotting, you try to insult me then get all offended when I insult you back, you go to tremendous lengths to try to avoid answering questions and points and then accuse me of focussing on you rather than the issue.I am glad you find it all funny, you said twice, so the whole thing was a joke that's a good sign, what question did I avoid? I answered your questions, and it wasn't a question, you see something you want to see it, I see it how it is, show me where did I avoid your question?

I did not get offended don't flatter yourself so quickly, I was merely exposing your arrogant game that's all, if you think you've offended me you're wrong, as I said before, you're nothing to me to offend me.
I meet guys like you almost everyday.
Back to earth.



The fact is that I can see through your argumentsyes you can see my arguments, but you argue with my personality instead of the debate itself.


all you can do with mine is throw labels at them and hope for the best someone else here comes to your rescue. You are a moron who repeats one-dimensional nonsense and tries to claim it as his own individual opinion. You are a joke. No wonder you've spent so much time on a forum founded by a guy who thinks he's the messiah and the world is run by shape-shifters. You wouldn't last five minutes discussing these views with people who don't already agree with you, so you hang around in this clique of ignorance and utter, unremitting stupidity because it's the only way to get away with having such ridiculous views and attitudes.First typical of a troll, you always accuse others of what you do, it's classic
You used my own analysis of your behaviour, this is a very childish behaviour, I said it to you in my previous post.

What I say and do is always mine, unlike you, who reads the government's website and thinks he knows is all, I asked you where did you first hear of Mohamed Atta, you gave me a very predictable answer, that I was expecting, you never heard of him before that.
Who's the phoney me or you?
You read about him after he was mentioned on 9/11 :) who's the moron?

It shows I had a prior knowledge of these guys way before they were mentioned. Who is the joke now?

I spend time on several forums lol :D What David Icke does or says, it's his business, if he believes he is the Messiah (he never said he was the messiah) or believes in reptilians it's his business, me being on his forum I happen to agree with him on several things that doesn't mean I agree with everything. ASSUMPTION again from you.

That shows one thing, you're either a troll pro establishment, or you're jealous of people, your words describe your inner self esteem.

What are you doing on a forum of a man who thinks he is the messiah and believes in reptilians then?

What clique?
People here deserve a little bit more respect, at least they are smart enough to try and look at other possibilities, everything you said, was no different with what the MSM been telling us, so now they sent you to go around forums like this to discredit and hijack threads.

Yes the CIA The Mossad and MI5/6 are behind 90% of what's happening in our world, and you don't like the truth.
What the head of an ISI doing in the CIA head quarters, what was he doing there prior to the 9/11?

Mahmoud Ahmad
Educate yourself by clicking here (http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO111A.html)

You're talking with a very limitted view, when I say the CIA/Mossad I am not stupid, I know there are other sub organisations they work with world wide, I didn't think you were that thick that you needed the spelling of everything, but maybe I should've spelled it all for you from A to Z.

Sorry it was my fault, for once I assumed wrong, thinking perhaps people on this forum will have a certain degree of awarness, you proved me wrong next time I will spell things to the letter.

And could you please let us continue with the thread, it's been diverted long enough.

I am back to the topic, I will ignore your further remarks.

[newswatcher26]

this is the truth of OKC.

http://judicial-inc.biz/94elohim_city.htm

[siatd]

Just grow up, you presence on this forum is not to discuss or debate but to try and undermine, humiliate, patronise people.
You need to grow up a bit.

So far on this forum I've been accused of all sorts of agendas and derogatory psychological conditions and been stereotyped and insulted because I don't accept the same things the majority of people here accept.

I've responded in similar fashion. No more, no less. I've reflected what people have thrown at me. Look at your first post to me, it contains any number of personal comments.

Even though I've already pointed this out to you, you're still persisting in telling me to 'grow up' and accusing me of having a specific agenda or intention. You made this confrontation personal, not me. This latest episode is just you trying to cover your own ass. It's an extremely common reaction.

I am glad you find it all funny, you said twice, so the whole thing was a joke that's a good sign, what question did I avoid? I answered your questions, and it wasn't a question, you see something you want to see it, I see it how it is, show me where did I avoid your question?

I asked: Tell me, when did Osama Bin Laden's original organisation of about a dozen members take place? When did Al Qaeda seize control of the MAK, the funding/recruiting operation for the Afghan Mujahideen? Who founded Al-Muhajiroun?

You have so far not shown you even understand the questions, let alone have you answered them.

I did not get offended don't flatter yourself so quickly, I was merely exposing your arrogant game that's all, if you think you've offended me you're wrong, as I said before, you're nothing to me to offend me.
I meet guys like you almost everyday.
Back to earth.

If you were so unoffended then why have you gone to such great lengths (complete with new insults) to tell me that you aren't offended?

The obvious conclusion is that this is once again a diversion on your part, that you really are/were offended but in order to try to look strong in public you pretend that you weren't. Even though that makes it obvious that you were.

yes you can see my arguments, but you argue with my personality instead of the debate itself.

I listed a series of assumptions underpinning the position you've taken, and explained why I think the assumptions are naive and stupid. From the off you've sought to characterise me, stereotype me, insult me, accuse me of various things and make the whole exchange about me. Look over your own posts, the evidence is all here in public on this thread. Look at your first post in particular.

First typical of a troll, you always accuse others of what you do, it's classic
You used my own analysis of your behaviour, this is a very childish behaviour, I said it to you in my previous post.

No, you insulted me so I insulted you back to show you how it feels.

What I say and do is always mine, unlike you, who reads the government's website and thinks he knows is all,

Which government?

Once again you accuse me of buying the government line - where have I done that? According to the government Ramzi has no connection to the Oklahoma City bombing - my first post was about that possible connection.

This is an easy accusation to make, but I've asked you repeatedly to give an example of where I've done this and you haven't.

The obvious conclusion is that you divide up the world into people who agree with you and people who believe the government, without any room for variations, complexities, subtle differences. It's an extremely primitive, dualistic logic, as I've pointed out all along.

I asked you where did you first hear of Mohamed Atta, you gave me a very predictable answer, that I was expecting, you never heard of him before that.
Who's the phoney me or you?
You read about him after he was mentioned on 9/11 :) who's the moron?

When did you first hear of Mohammed Atta?

It shows I had a prior knowledge of these guys way before they were mentioned. Who is the joke now?

What shows that? Did you know the name Mohammed Atta before 9/11/01? Did you know who he was?

I spend time on several forums lol :D What David Icke does or says, it's his business, if he believes he is the Messiah (he never said he was the messiah) or believes in reptilians it's his business, me being on his forum I happen to agree with him on several things that doesn't mean I agree with everything. ASSUMPTION again from you.

Do you not see how I'm reflecting your own words back at you to try to illustrate the folly of an approach such as yours? Do you still not get that?

That shows one thing, you're either a troll pro establishment, or you're jealous of people, your words describe your inner self esteem.

See above re: stereotyping, dualism and derogatory psychological comments.

What are you doing on a forum of a man who thinks he is the messiah and believes in reptilians then?

Having a look to see if there's anyone here with the maturity to approach these themes without resorting to a tabloid mentality and rhetoric. So far I haven't seen any.

[qote]What clique?
People here deserve a little bit more respect, at least they are smart enough to try and look at other possibilities, everything you said, was no different with what the MSM been telling us, so now they sent you to go around forums like this to discredit and hijack threads.[/quote]

So now I've been 'sent' by the Mainstream Media have I? Again, this is you repeating what someone else has told you without thinking about it critically. You're a fucking cretin.

Yes the CIA The Mossad and MI5/6 are behind 90% of what's happening in our world, and you don't like the truth.

Ah, so now it's only 90% You've revised your earlier position that they are 'involved in everything'?

As I said, I'm well aware that the CIA etc. have been involved in coups, terrorism and so on. Yet you persist in accusing me of believing what 'the government' and 'the MSM' tell us.

What the head of an ISI doing in the CIA head quarters, what was he doing there prior to the 9/11?

Mahmoud Ahmad
Educate yourself by clicking here (http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO111A.html)

The bigger question is why he was quietly allowed to retire shortly after 9/11 without any sort of investigation into the Wall Street Journal reports of money transfers to the alleged 9/11 hijackers. As should be clear to you now, I'm more than familiar with this material.

You're talking with a very limitted view, when I say the CIA/Mossad I am not stupid, I know there are other sub organisations they work with world wide, I didn't think you were that thick that you needed the spelling of everything, but maybe I should've spelled it all for you from A to Z.

Once again you're seeking only to insult and derogate. And you call me a troll.

Sorry it was my fault, for once I assumed wrong, thinking perhaps people on this forum will have a certain degree of awarness, you proved me wrong next time I will spell things to the letter.

In other words you're used to exchanges where people let you get away with lax, vague statements like 'it's all the CIA' without picking you up on it and demanding you be clearer in what you're saying.

I accept your apology for your vagueness, imprecision, insults, diversions, nonsense, accusations, assumptions and general unwillingness to discuss anything that isn't what you think is true.

And could you please let us continue with the thread, it's been diverted long enough.

I am back to the topic, I will ignore your further remarks.

You keep saying that. I don't believe you. I think your next response will be just like this one, though I'm willing to hope it isn't.

[curtaincat]

Of course Tim was a scapegoat.

I have only skimmed this last page, but the answer is Yes.

Don't feed the trolls adbasque, your time is too valuable to be wasted on them.... you need to get a bullshit-o-meter .... :D

[bard]

this is the truth of OKC.

http://judicial-inc.biz/94elohim_city.htm

The person shown on this web page as Andreas Strassmeir does look Jewish.
However, there seems to be discrepancy, since other sources point out that this is how
Andreas Strassmeir looks like (quite German look in my view):
http://jaajoe.com/oenn/images/OKC/oklasasaho3.jpg

http://eyeonhate.com/mcveigh/andreas2b.jpg

Let us not make things simpler than they are.

[branjo]

If you google a Bill Cooper video (I don't know which one it is it think it might be the long one about his history) he talks about meeting TM once and he thought he was mind controlled. If you research Bill Cooper, he new what he was talking about.

You know out of all I have seen or read, I would hazard a guess that Cooper was the only man that knew too much. He took no shit from no one.

A great man

[adbasque]

You know out of all I have seen or read, I would hazard a guess that Cooper was the only man that knew too much. He took no shit from no one.

A great man

I have read and listened to Bill Cooper since the late 80 til he was killed in 2001, he knew a hell of a lot, even though there were few things I didn't agree with, but overall he knew a great deal on what was going on in the world.

He was a great and brave man, that's why he was taken out by the cowards, they were very scared of him.

Yes he didn't take any bull*** from anyone, I really liked the man he was.

[adbasque]

Of course Tim was a scapegoat.

I have only skimmed this last page, but the answer is Yes.

Don't feed the trolls adbasque, your time is too valuable to be wasted on them.... you need to get a bullshit-o-meter .... :D

I agree with you :)

[adbasque]

You keep saying that. I don't believe you. I think your next response will be just like this one, though I'm willing to hope it isn't.


And could you please let us continue with the thread, it's been diverted long enough.

I am back to the topic, I will ignore your further remarks.




I said I will ignore any further remarks from you, not comments related to the topic, I meant any personal remarks that's all.

Atta was first spotted in Al Quds Mosque and that's where he was an architect, I am sure you're already know that, the reason he went to Al-Quds is to study the Islamic Architecture, after spending few years in hamburg.

He was known before 9/11 because he was trying to integrate ancient islamic architecture with the modern western architecture.

Maybe I knew of him because I am a muslim, he had no intentions of being a terrorist, and I still believe he was a patsy.

[alrick888]

Yeah this is interesting we need room to explore the OKbomb in detail without interference. Because it happened in 1995 they got away with a lot, and because the internet wasn't so big back then it's harder to find reliable data now.

So we need to look for discrepancies in the official story and explore the cast of characters. And, most of all, use our intuition.

Like, study the look in Timothy McVeigh's eyes. It is a very confused look, somebody who hasn't got a clue what the hell happened to him.

The http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secret_Rulers_of_the_World episode about this is a bit hard to find but features interviews with a lot of key players, including Andreas Strassmeier (by phone).

He is the son of a high ranking German politician and a very slick character; in the interview he doesn't deny he was in Elohim City but never explains why he was there. He presents it as having a vacation. But if you're innocent, why flee justice, right? There is a testimony in the documentary from strippers who claim seeing him together with McVeigh and hearing him brag about events to come a few days beforehand. But of course, they are strippers, who would listen right?

There is also an overview of all discrepancies (and there are a lot) by former FBI bureau chief Ted gunderson ("Bloody Wednesday") and there is a book by Jim Keith.

The videos of the hearings that Congress started into the militia movement immediately after are still on Youtube.

[adbasque]

Yeah this is interesting we need room to explore the OKbomb in detail without interference. Because it happened in 1995 they got away with a lot, and because the internet wasn't so big back then it's harder to find reliable data now.

Yes they got away with a lot, because in those days the Internet wasn't as popular as it is today, I remember having dial up back then and very very few websites even.
So people could not share information and educate one another, we were more exposed to the lying media.

I am convinced that TM was a confused victim who probably lead a very tough life, and the PTB got hold of him, to use him as a patsy and frame him for their evil crime.



So we need to look for discrepancies in the official story and explore the cast of characters. And, most of all, use our intuition.


That's one of the reasons I started this thread, we owe him at least that.

Like, study the look in Timothy McVeigh's eyes. It is a very confused look, somebody who hasn't got a clue what the hell happened to him.

The Secret Rulers of the World (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secret_Rulers_of_the_World) episode about this is a bit hard to find but features interviews with a lot of key players, including Andreas Strassmeier (by phone).

He was the son of Jewish German Nazi.
Strassmeier is from a Jewish family.


He is the son of a high ranking German politician and a very slick character; in the interview he doesn't deny he was in Elohim City but never explains why he was there. He presents it as having a vacation. But if you're innocent, why flee justice, right? There is a testimony in the documentary from strippers who claim seeing him together with McVeigh and hearing him brag about events to come a few days beforehand. But of course, they are strippers, who would listen right?

Absolutely

There is also an overview of all discrepancies (and there are a lot) by former FBI bureau chief Ted gunderson ("Bloody Wednesday") and there is a book by Jim Keith.

The videos of the hearings that Congress started into the militia movement immediately after are still on Youtube.

What we need to do is perhaps to compile some of the information that is available.

Good points ;)