~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Good grief! Do you always deal in circular logic?
The "underlying plot of OKC is not crystal clear to begin with", because there has been a complex -- and largely successful -- coverup.
I am a PROPONENT of the concept that someone (middleeasterners) were involved in OKC besides McVeigh. My thought here was that SOMEONE ON FR, if anywhere, could explain what THEY THOUGHT or SUSPECTED had happened in a short paragraph.
Something like: "Saddam, motivated by XYZ, wanted to strike the US, so he linked up with McVeigh and provided him with ABC, etc."
Instead TXnMA complain that -I- use bad logic (bad logic in a question, forcryingoutlioud!!!,) Peach scolds me for not reading "all the links," and DFU, in an honest response to my request for "a clear, concise, convincing, bite-size argument as to what "really" happened"....sends me 2,199 words (counted them in word) from a continuously updated blog (update I, Update II, etc, link, link, link.)
I want to have an argument that can be spread easily and simply to grandparents and friends who are not "FR-quality."
But if I can't get anything like that here, it seems clear that it doesn't exist.
DFU, I thank you for your post, of course, but I'm going to try to summarize that link and see if you think I've distilled it correctly.
Uh? So anytime there's no proof of something, then it must've been covered up?
Ok, so what was the motivation for the coverup and how did everyone get on board?
I started believing this stuff back when Alex Jones was the only person covering it. Now that he's turned into a leftist lunatic, I'm starting to wonder who's really still walking the line here.