Posted on 04/03/2006 8:13:43 AM PDT by doug from upland
I pinged to the newer thread, is it the same thing?
I miss you around here :-)"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So do I, Peach -- so do I!
TXnMA
His website is vicmord.com. His books are Global Threat, and another about Islam. He has been talking about rad. Islam for years.
Back to 24!
.
Thank you for that information; I'm going to google his stuff.
Yes; it's the same thing so you don't have to ping again. Sorry for the double :-)
Is there a way to post those photos?
They were on the OKBIC webserver, but I don't know where the current webmaster put them -- or if they were deleted. I think I still have JPEG copies, but several generations of laptops have come and gone since I worked with them. Let me see what I can do...
Don't go nuts trying to find them; will check in later.
I repeat, I have not read Davis, but I have looked at Minitier and Lance, both of whom are convinced that a) there is an AQ, b) they want to kill us, and c) Clinton did nothing. So these are hardly people who are "leftists." Nevertheless, neither is convinced of any kind of OK City link. Further, I read a debate with Stephen Hayward and Laurie Mylroie, and did not find the evidence persuasive when her theories were challenged.
This is so much like the JFK assassination in that when any "stream" of conspiracy theorists uncovers possibly important new evidence, it isn't rationally processed but rejected out of hand by other "streams" whose point of view will be destroyed if another point of view triumphs.
Personally, I want the truth, and I'm satisfied if that truth is that McVeigh and Nichols acted alone. Like you, I would welcome a ME connection to OK city. For one, it would prove Clinton horribly wrong. But objectively, I don't see it yet.
Which is why I included petite juries, which means that there were two completely different defense attorneys who had an opportunity to "muddy the waters" and blame someone else and at least mitigate damage to their clients; and, more important, ANY info their clients could have provided would have certainly helped in a deal. Maybe McV. didn't want one, but Nichols sure did. Yet with all that riding on it, no defense atty. ever managed to introduce one single piece of evidence into the trial record that would take even some of the blame of McV. or N.
I've pinged you three times now to a Washington Post article that you are 100% incorrect about Lance. He said unequivocably in that article that he believes there is a ME terrorism connection to the Murrah Building bombing.
Did you miss those pings or are you just ignoring evidence which contradicts your posts about Lance?
In the course of his investigation, Lance revisits the bombing of the Oklahoma City federal building by Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols, and he finds "a growing body of evidence" to suggest that Ramzi Yousef may have designed that truck bomb. He devotes a chapter to this possibility, citing potential connections between Yousef and Nichols (who was married to a Filipina). It also emerges that Murad -- Yousef's co-conspirator -- claimed responsibility for the 1995 Murrah Building bombing on the morning it happened. An FBI document confirms it. (Full disclosure: I've spoken to Peter Lance several times, after first hearing about his work-in-progress from a whistle-blower group that champions FBI reform.)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A52078-2003Sep9?language=printer
No, just because you "ping" someone doesn't mean a) you are right, or b) that it is the most recent thing Lance has said on it. Lance has modified his position, but I don't know what it is today. As of the time of his book, he discounted the notion. Sorry, I don't keep up with every interview posted by every person ever to deal with terrorism. I'd like to know specifically what new evidence Lance saw from the time of his book.
And "suggests" and "may have" and "possibility" is not DID.
Unless you have new evidence, I have not seen anything that places Nichols and Yousef in the same place in the Philippines at the same time. Weird that they were both there? Yes. But not in and of itself convincing.
#1. Just because I ping someone doesn't mean I'm right or it's the most recent thing Lance said? That's a weird statement right there.
Why don't you post a link to your assertion that Lance doesn't believe a ME link to OKC and we'll check dates.
#2. You said that at the time of his book, he discounted a connection.
I guess you didn't read carefully the link I provided because it clearly says that he devoted a chapter (in his book) to discussing what he believes is a growing body of evidence to suggest that Yousef taught Nichols how to make the bomb.
LOLOLOL. Oh, my. We can lead them to water but can't make them drink.
You have now been provided with a Washington Post article, complete with a date, FOUR TIMES and you're asking that?
1000 Years for Revenge. And if you think that SUPPORTS you, we didn't read the same book. Yes, he EXPLORES the possibility---I read that with great interest because I thought, "a ha! Here is someone else who views this link as credible." In the end, however, he didn't. It's been 2-3 years since I read it, but I'm pretty sure that the upshot of his chapter was, "interesting stuff, no real proof."
Dude, if I followed every link some yahoo posts, I'd be here all night. Just give the date. Is it after his 1000 Years for Revenge? If so, what has he said since? And besides, I thought you said Lance was unreliable. A reporter for ABC, something like that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.