Replies

It is so obvious that this is another "enemy of my enemy is my friend" situation.

I have posted this story on another website, & a staunch liberal came up with the comment below. I know how to answer some of it, but I don't want to give a weak answer to the part that I'm not informed on, particularly because others read the website. If anyone can help me give a good answer to ANY of it, please help. :)

His response in quotes:

"Well I read most of the website you recommended and noticed a few problems with Ms. Davis' storytelling. First of all when she talks about Nichols travelling to the Phillipines, she never seemed to bother to mention that his wife was a mail order bride from the Phillipines. The implication from her story is that Nichols must have been there to meet with terrorists to learn about bombmaking, why else you he be there? How did Ms. Davis not find this to be pertinent enough to even mention in the article.
Also there is a major problem with her entire argument. Where are the earmarks of Iraqi or Arabic connections. The bomb itself was remarkably easy to make and outlined in the Turner Diaries, a book that I have read myself. Anyone who does a small amount of research into bombmaking could accomplish it. You certainly would not need "explosive experts" to teach or train you. Also the description of John Doe #2 was overwhelmingly described as white. Interestingly she provides no picture of either the suspected Iraqi connection or John Doe # 2 on her website even though they look "arguably identical". Having said that she may in her book. Here is the kicker though. John Doe #2 looked almost identical to Nichols' 12 year old son. This was something that everyone noticed from the start and the media even pursued it.
Her "evidence" seems to be mostly that McVeigh was seen in a bar with some Middle Easterners. How these witnesses could know exactly who these men were is never explained. Also that some Iraqis were seen at one of the same hotels as McVeigh and were seen moving things around a white truck (McVeigh drove a Ryder truck which are not reasonably described as a white trucks). That really is not much to go on. Also the truck was loaded up with all the materials when him and Nichols were at Geary Lake, not in a hotel parking lot. Would seem to be a pretty stupid place to do something like that.
As for her "connection" to the bombing with Alhussaini, there is none. First of all how did she get testimony from his shrink when those are doctor-patient confidential. Also how do any of his remarks connect him to any bombings anywhere. If he was a terrorist why would he want to quit his job at Logan Airport when it would have obvious strategical advantages. Also what evidence is there of Alhussaini being anti-American? A single person claiming that he was happy about 9/11 doesn't mean anything. Also her brief mentioning that Alhussaini work time card which gave him a full alibi was "labeled a fabrication" is suspicious. Why doesn't she mention who labeled them a fabrication? Was it a court of law? Was it an independent expert? Or was it simply her that labeled it a fabrication? Also how come she can't seem to find someone who said that he wasn't actually at work on that day? The only thing that seems clear to me is that Alhussaini is a victim of racial prejudice. I hope he wins his lawsuit.
In the end there is no evidence of any connection. The bombing had every mark of the White Supremacist and American anti-Government movement. The date April 19th, the bomb itself, the connections of McVeigh (former Klansman and member of the National Alliance), Nichols (Militias and White Supremacist orgs) and Fortier (Militias). If you have ever read the Turner Diaries you will notice that the details of the bombing are almost identical to one which the "hero" of the book takes part. I stand by my comment that the accusations are pathetic and offensive."