It's the issue of how, once again, the "NWO Conspiracy" topic gets thrown into the mix, thus making it extremely easy for most people to just roll their eyes and discount any possible notion of Arab/foreign involvement in the 1995 OKC bombing. It's the issue of how, if this thread takes the typical "NWO" route that is so common at FR these days, then normally-rational people will take one look, get disgusted, and then dismiss the OKC facts entirely. When people start talking about the much larger issue of their viewpoints on the Patriot Act and how they think Dubya is part of a Grand Conspiracy to enslave us all, you'll needlessly lose at least 75% of your readership. I've said this for years, too, so it's not anything new.
Stick to the facts and leave out everything that is superfluous to the matter at hand. One of the reasons we managed to dig out the facts on the Akal/Teg Security threads was because we didn't get sidetracked. We didn't give the shills any ammunition to jump on the thread and use against us and start screaming "NutWing!" Facts are facts and deserve the chance to stand alone without everyone's opinions about Waco, the NWO, et al getting thrown into the mix. It just muddies the water and makes it too easy for the fence-sitters to dismiss the facts at hand.
It's always easier for me to just avoid the threads that start going down the NWO road, but this article and this topic deserves a closer look. Al Hussain Hussaini as John Doe2 deserves close scrutiny and the benefit of an open mind from everyone who reads this thread. But it's a good bet that most people who pride themselves on being part of the "Non-NutWing" crowd will stop reading once they start seeing the Bush-bashing Bilderberger talk.
Look, think of it from a practical standpoint, okay? Throw out any emotional attachments to the overall NWO topic and examine it from a purely practical and egocentric standpoint. And it may help to compare this with people who lose loved ones, go through the grieving process, then get stuck in the Denial Stage. I think that analogy may fit nicely.
The goal is to help them get through their denial so they can face reality, do what needs to be done and then get on with life. But you can't rush it and try to cram it down their throats; a little finesse is in order if you want to keep their attention. Their denial mechanism is a crutch and is helping them cope with the unthinkable. It may be a crutch, but it's a useful crutch and one that is necessary at that point in time. You don't want to just yank it out from under them and cram "reality" down their throats just to make your point. Instead, you take baby steps. You only give them what they can handle at that moment; otherwise they get totally overwhelmed, shut you out completely, and walk away. You only give them what they can safely handle at that moment in time.
This article by John Gibson is about John Doe2 and his possible connection to OKC and WTC2. It's not about Waco. It's not about Ruby Ridge. It's not about Flight 800. It's not about the Patriot Act. And it's sure as hell not about how Dubya is a secret member of the Bilderberger Gang and how we're all doomed for transdermal computer chip implants and the "666 Mark-of-the-Beast" on our foreheads in bright red, tattooed ink unless we get the "evil FBI" to admit they covered up the truth in the OKC bombing.
By bringing in the NWO stuff, Freepers do John Gibson, Larry Johnson, Jayna Davis, Dan Vogel, David Shippers and all the people working behind the scenes a huge disservice. You make them vulnerable to anyone who wants to scream "NutWing!" and anyone with ulterior motives who wants to marginalize the people who are willing to look at all the facts. I saw former CIA agent Larry Johnson on Monday morning's "Fox News and Friends" and almost dropped out of my chair. In fact, I got so excited that I yelled at my husband to turn on the TV in the other room. Mr. Johnson appeared very credible and marked the first time I've seen this on a credible news show. He actually quoted the FBI agent (Vogel?), which speaks volumes. At the time, I told my husband that either Larry Johnson was egregiously violating a precious confidence and will now rightfully get sued for slander, or there are people in the FBI/CIA/Pentagon/?? who are trying to make the truth known and this is a huge step in the right direction.
I do feel bad for being rather sarcastic up there in #20 when I first threw this out and I apologize for that. But I think it's an accurate reflection of the frustration some of us feel. Or maybe I'm all alone in this thinking, I don't know. If I am, it may be because the other 80% stopped reading when the Bush-bashing/NWO talk started and once again threw the baby out with the bathwater before getting through their denial.
Bottom line (finally): I just think it's wiser to change people's minds and open up their eyes by using an incremental, "carrot & stick" approach instead of trying to cram the carrot down their throats. It's much wiser and has a higher chance of being successful. Strategically speaking, of course.
Just my opinion, for what it's worth. :-)
However, I will continue to criticise defects in Bush policies on China, Cuba, legalizing illegal immigration, CFR, sharing operational details of US missile defense with Russia and China, unilateral disarmament of too many of our nuclear misile delivery systems, flaws in the Patriot act, pressuring Israel to give land and Jerusalem to the PLO, blocking and manipulating (sent Snider, Tenet's deputy)at least some open Congressional hearings on the failures of US intell leading to the 9/11 attacks.
I have noticed that many defenders of Bush use as an argument when I criticise Bush policies that I must be a NWO conspiracy nut for even making the cricisms on factual grounds even when I do not introduce any motive on Bush's part.
The Bush supporters can appear narrow minded and dictatorial (even when they are not) during the times when they improperly label Bush critics NWO conspiracy nuts (the ones who do not deserve the label)and only increase suspicions of what Bush's motives are for the things I and others (Conservative Repubs) criticize Bush for.
I do believe that many of the mistakes Bush has made with policiy decisions recommended by Ahscroft, Mueller, Rice and Powell and Scowcroft has helped the NWO agenda even if Bush is not part of the NWO crowd and does not intend to help them or their agenda. That is a fair argument to raise that does not deserve a NWO conspiracy nut label.
There is no doubt that there is a World Governance (NWO, New World Order, World Government,etc.) with a clear well established agenda and a presence in the US, in the EU, in corporations and in COngress and in the US government. Stating that does not make one a NWO conspiracy nut. It is fact.
1. As I (sort of) pointed out in an earlier post, you don't have to be a Ruby Ridge, Flight 800, Waco, Bilderburger, NWO "true believer" to be labeled a nut. All you have to suggest is that you're not quite convinced of the government's story on the OKC bombing, and that you'd like to see a more thorough investigation. This, despite the poll last year prior to McVeigh's execution that most people in the U.S. believe there were additional people responsible who have not yet been identified/arrested.
2. RE: NWO.
Did anybody out there ever read Taylor Caldwell's novels? Written before the term "New World Order" became part of the popular lexicon, she suggested that only a VERY few (fewer than the reputed "300")individuals had significant impact on the direction of world events, and, that rather than specifically ordering events (like WTC, OKC, war with Afghanistan, Iraq, etc.), they used their money to create certain conditions that would make certain events, like wars, likely to occur. In some of the books, these "evil plans" did not come to the desired fruition, because of individual human goodness.
As much as I like George W., I had a strong feeling about six months or so before the 2000 election that somebody out there wanted him elected president REALLY badly, and I wondered whether a war was in the offing....
3. I mention all this because perhaps the so-called "new world order" is nothing more than a far-flung group of people (not terribly unlike FReepers, at least in this respect, or the renowned and much-maligned VRWC) who have diverse backgrounds but the same general goals, as mentioned on an earlier post in this thread.
For example, consider this: We already know that Al-Quaeda is a "loosely-based, non-centralized" group, in the words of GWB.
If you recall, in the first days after September 11, Osama Bin Laden denied responsibility, saying this was the work of an "individual", implying that he knew about it and possibly funded it, but didn't come up with the idea himself and didn't organize it or order it.
As far as we know, this is the truth. That doesn't mean he isn't responsible, of course, in light of the fact that his organization endorsed and likely funded the terrorists. But here's my point.
We know that part of the reason Mohammed Atta brought down the Trade Center was because he hated Western architecture, something he considered to be a symbol of the Western influence on his homeland, which he considered detestable.
We also know that part of the reason McVeigh brought down the Murrah building, or played a role in it, was because he considered it a symbol of the United States government and its role in atrocities like Waco.
Isn't there some sort of parallel in these two extremely evil acts? It seems to me that rather than concentrating on theories that lead in diverse directions, as Nita suggests, we ought to focus on the common threads. And they are definitely out there.
P.S. Could someone please explain in more detail about the Fox News reporter who claimed to discredit Paul Bedard's column last fall? Did she simply quote him, or was there an actual sound bite?
Yes Bill Clinton is a Fabian Socialist, but he did not have an instant cabal throughout government to call on. He just took advantage of chaos, corruption, and fellow travelers where he found these tools.