Replies

I should clarify that this is what I meant: What did any Muslim terrorist group get out of the OKC bombing, al qaeda or not, anonymously or not? We knew the '93 WTC attack was by Islamic extremists and we also knew that about all the other attacks right up until and including 911. But how does OKC fit in? Was a Muslim connection meant only to stir things up within the U.S., and did clintoon really buttonhole the situation so airtight that such a connection was ignored?

I follow Laurie Mylorie, so again, I have an open mind as far as a Muslim link; especially an Iraq link. I just cannot -- no matter how much I try -- see the logic or value of a hidden Muslim link to OKC. They gained nothing; there was no bragging to fellow extremists, etc. For the attack(s) before the OKC bombing and the ones after the OKC bombing, there was always much more than light rumors. Even plans for sabatoging the NYC subway and an actual Muslim extremist shooting at I believe the Empire State Building in the late '90s was openly Muslim extremist.

I see what you mean. But you can ask the same question about the 1998 embassy bombings, or the Cole attack, etc., etc. The purpose of terror is to terrify, and the OKC attack was (until 9/11) the most effective and terrifying attack ever against a U.S. target.

Destabilization, fomenting fear and revolution (at least theoretically), forcing the U.S. to focus on its home front...

I agree it's not as cut and dry as it could be, and there may be more that needs to be explained on this front. But there was never a specific message attached to 9/11 or WTC 1993 either. During the 1990s, al Qaeda spread a lot of money around with the main goal of encouraging chaos. They were mainly out to hurt us, which they did.

I should perhaps add that before actually investigating, I was never a big fan of this particular conspiracy theory, and I'm not at all political about the story. I just ended up finding so much circumstantial evidence to support the notion that I concluded there had to be a fire behind the smoke. I still don't know the whole story, and we may never know it...

jmb

We knew the '93 WTC attack was by Islamic extremists and we also knew that about all the other attacks right up until and including 911. But how does OKC fit in?

I don't know about you, but I remember the day the OKC federal building was hit, and everyone I knew immediately thought Middle Easterners. I think that's why skepticism that McVeigh and Nichols acted alone is still so strong. That, and the fact that two ex-military white supremacists as the only perps fit so neatly into Clinton's agenda, i.e., non-confrontational with radical Islamists, but hell-bent on destroying right-wing extremists (which for Clinton included all Conservatives).

Bin Laden and crew have often referred to striking the American heart in their threats -- OKC is definitely in the heartland. After OKC, IMO, they decided they could get more spectacular results (and kill more Jews) by concentrating on the East Coast, and in particular, New York City.

The Islamist terrorists certainly seem to have enjoyed what amounted to presidential protection after OKC.