Oklahoma City bombing - search results
From a MHB Reader.
The correspondence below, received over one month ago from a former Oklahoma City resident, is especially timely given recent developments in the Boston Marathon bombing case. On January 30 the US Department of Justice announced that it will pursue the death penalty against Dzhokhar Tsarnaev for the Boston bombing. (See BMB Timeline.) This is the most high-profile death penalty case pursued by the federal government since it sought to execute Timothy McVeigh for his alleged role in the 1995 bombing of the Oklahoma City Murrah Federal Building.
It is a privilege to share this letter, particularly since the reader’s true courage and initiative in seeking to fully examine and understand the monumental crime visited upon his community, likewise exemplified in the Oklahoma City Bombing Investigation Committee’s work and the film A Noble Lie, are the nation’s most vital and necessary resources.-JFT
I admire your nerve in speaking out about the Sandy Hook “staged” disaster and your comments about Oklahoma City, etc. Ok City is my hometown and I have many relatives living there and in Stillwater. I followed the facts on the bombing of the Murrah Building in Ok. City and knew people directly involved as witnesses or victims in that incident.
General Parton clearly proved that the explosive devices that brought down the building were shaped charges of C-4 Plastic and not Ammonium Nitrate. I also interviewed a gentlemen at the nearby Classen High School museum (1 1/2 block from the Murrah Bldg.) who was in the museum the day of the explosions and he was very sure that the first explosion (Am. Nitrate Bomb) could be heard like a loud boom but that the second explosion was a sharp crack bang which shook the museum bldg. and broke several glass windows in the museum.
I worked with a group in Ok. City to try to replicate the concrete skeleton of the Murrah Building to prove that an Am. Nitrate bomb could not have destroyed the concrete columns in the building but was not able to muster the funds to do so. The positive proof that the root cause of the explosion was not the Am. Nitrate bomb was the fact that the entire Murrah Building debris was hauled away and buried in nearby El Reno at the U.S. Army Reservation and marked “restricted area”.
I didn’t follow the Sandy Hook Shooting in detail but I did play close attention to the Boston Marathon bombing and it is abundantly clear that the bombing was staged. The video shot of the two suspected bombers shows back packs with no bulge to suggest that they had pressure cooker bombs inside their backpacks. Additionally, the individual who supposedly had his legs blown off was smiling and his knubs were clearly mature surgical amputations. As one Orthopedic Surgeon pointed out, “If this man had lost his lower legs, he would be lying prone with tourniquets applied to his upper thighs to reduce the bleeding.”
In my opinion, what we are dealing with is a federal government that has rogue agencies following directives from the highest levels of government in order to accomplish a political goal ([repeal of] 1st Amendment Free Speech and 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms [gun control]). I am not a conspiracy nut but neither am I a fool. Isn’t it interesting that in all of the school shootings as well as the Aurora Colorado Theater shooting, the killers were all proven to be on mind altering drugs?
Please keep up the good work and tell your bosses at [censored] University that 1,000′s of us out here in fly over country support your stand and applaud your bravery. Respond if you can and tell me how I can help.
[Name and address withheld on request.]
Some people should not be professors and probably have too much time on their hands. Communications Professor James Tracy of Florida Atlantic University might be one of those people. Via Raw Story, some quotes from a blog post he wrote last month:
“While it sounds like an outrageous claim, one is left to inquire whether the Sandy Hook shooting ever took place—at least in the way law enforcement authorities and the nation’s news media have described,” he declared, noting that no surveillance video of photos of bodies had been released by authorities.
“Moreover, to suggest that [President Barack] Obama is not capable of deploying such techniques to achieve political ends is to similarly place one's faith in image and interpretation above substance and established fact, the exact inclination that in sum has brought America to such an impasse.”
Has anyone told this professor that the absence of evidence is not evidence, or that the absence of said evidence in this case suggests the event never happened?
26 graves in Sandy Hook, Connecticut say otherwise. That is evidence enough.
Professor Tracy appears to be a bit of a conspiracy theorist at heart, paranoid as all get-out, and sure that the Obama administration manufactured this whole tragedy in order to spark national sympathies toward gun control. But he did clarify his thoughts for WPTV:
On Tuesday, WPTV caught up with Tracy, who also doubts the official versions President John F. Kennedy’s assassination, the Oklahoma City bombing, the Sept. 11 terrorists attacks and the mass shooting at a theater in Aurora, Colorado last year.
“In terms of saying that Sandy Hook — the Newtown massacre — did not take place, is really an oversimplification of what I actually said,” he explained. “I said that I think that there may very well be elements of that event that are synthetic to some degree, that are somewhat contrived. I think that, overall, the media really did drop the ball. I don’t think that they got to the bottom of some of the things that may have taken place there.”
"Elements of that event that are synthetic to some degree"? Like what? Twenty dead children and six dead adults is not a synthetic thing, nor is the fact that they were killed with a weapon capable of gunning down an entire group. Yes, the conspiracy would be massive and for what? To start a showdown over responsible gun safety laws that will be bloody and likely leave no one feeling fully satisfied? Please, give me a small break here.
It should bother all of us that this wingnut is responsible for teaching students. It should bother us all more that he's teaching communications. Clearly he has some work to do on his own communicating style. The only 'bottom of things' here is the bottom of the conspiracy theorists' barrel.
Stunning Hypocrisy The civil war in Syria started in March 2011. And see this. However, the U.S. has been funding the Syrian opposition since 2006 … and arming the opposition since 2007. (In reality, the U.S. and Britain considered attacking … Continue reading →
From Homeland Security News Wire:
30 January 2014
The U.S. Justice Department announced that the United States will seek the death penalty against Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the 20-year-old accused of detonating two bombs the Boston Marathon last April, killing three people and injuring more than 200 others. The younger Tsarnaev faces thirty counts in the bombing, including use of a weapon of mass destruction resulting in death and the bombing of a public place. Since 1964, the federal government has only executed three people, including Timothy McVeigh who was convicted in the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing.
U.S. Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. said in a statement that “After consideration of the relevant facts, the applicable regulations and the submissions made by the defendant’s counsel, I have determined that the United States will seek the death penalty in this matter. The nature of the conduct at issue and the resultant harm compel this decision.”
The younger Tsarnaev faces thirty counts in the bombing, including use of a weapon of mass destruction resulting in death and the bombing of a public place....
Much more here.
Rep. Steve Stockman is one of those representatives. Put more simply, his reelection should be taken as a sign that certain areas of Texas are still bitter at Somalia's success, and even more bitter that they can't just elect outright crooks like Tom DeLay anymore. Mostly known for being a nutcase one-term Congressman back in the nineties, Stockman made a brief name for himself with Waco conspiracy theories, gun fetishism, gun fetishism about Waco conspiracy theories, and a relationship with the NRA and anti-government militias that even for the 1990's was fairly goddamn nuts.
How nuts? Oh, pretty nuts:
A Republican member of Congress from Texas has suggested that the Clinton Administration staged the 1993 raid on the Branch Davidian compound near Waco, Tex., to convince Congress that it should ban assault weapons.
"Waco was supposed to be a way for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) and the Clinton Administration to prove the need for a ban on so-called 'assault weapons,' " the Representative, Steve Stockman, who is a strong opponent of gun control, wrote in the June issue of Guns & Ammo magazine.
And here's a post-Oklahoma-City-bombing Los Angeles Times article on his behavior after receiving a note thought to be linked to that bombing:
Stockman and his staff denied that they had delayed passing the note--which seemed to convey information about the Oklahoma blast--to the FBI. But they faced troublesome questions about why Stockman's staff also gave the note to the National Rifle Assn. and why Stockman in March wrote to the Justice Department objecting to what he said was an impending federal raid on "citizen militia" groups, apparently akin to the kinds of anti-government groups that seem to figure in the background of at least one suspect in the Oklahoma bombing.
Before and after that short and entirely unhinged shift in Congress, Stockman hasn't had a political career so much as an ambitious, decades-long string of political failurespunctuated by a few lucky breaks and more than a little friendly wingnut welfare (with an emphasis on molding young conservative minds via things like the Campus Leadership Program, and no, I do not know why that creeps me out as much as it does.) Still, for some reason a passel of ultraconservatives in Texas felt that it was finally time to give the obvious crazy person another shot in the big boy office, and Stockman is quickly making those Texans proud by being, well, as big a goddamn crackpot as he can manage without being hauled off for professional supervision.
Below the fold, let's consider his absolutely insane one-month record so far:
- He was only one of a handful of House Republicans to vote against John Boehner, boldly managing a "present" vote as the most spectacularly incompetent congressional coup of all time collapsed around its supposed planners.
- In the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary School murders, his response was to introduce legislation repealing the gun free zones around schools, and for the same reason as the similar NRA blustering—because what we needed, according to both, was to have manymore people wandering around school zones with guns, and that would probably work out just fine.
- He was abruptly cut off in a Fox News interview after comparing Barack Obama to Saddam Hussein, thus managing to rank as one of the few crackpot Republicans too nuts even for Fox News to stomach.
- When Obama introduced a set of executive actions that included things like "finally appoint a permanent head of the ATF, even if that makes Republicans sad" and "government scientists should be allowed to research gun violence", Steve Stockman threatened in an exceptionally frothing statement to impeach Obama, if necessary, in order to stop such obviously scandalous things. This may have been the first, biggest sign that Steve Stockman is in fact a bona fide moron, but he quickly surpassed even that.
That brings us to Stockman's latest episode of Congressional Moron Theater. In response to other politicians inviting Sandy Hook first responders, children, and other figures to the State of the Union, decided to rebut the presence of those people by inviting Ted Nugent, a man whose unhinged, violent rhetoric even managed to garner a visit by the Secret Service:
As it became more unwilling to compromise over even minor gun controls, the NRA is now on the bad side of police.
Photo Credit: Shutterstock.com
January 24, 2013 |
Like this article?
Join our email list:
Stay up to date with the latest headlines via email.
For years, the National Rifle Association cultivated a reputation as an unbeatable political powerhouse—a legacy that was challenged on Thursday with the introduction of major new gun control legislation in the U.S. Senate banning more than 100 military-style guns.
But the NRA’s tough reputation unwinds if one delves into the history behind its harshest rhetoric—which began in the 1970s and escalated as former allies, notably America’s police, rejected its increasingly militant demands. What today’s NRA would like to forget is how its unbending extremism led to a losing streak in Congress two decades ago, a period whose gun politics echo today but gun controls nevertheless passed.
Perhaps the best way to understand how the NRA is not the all-powerful lobby it seeks to portray itself as is to look at how the organization went from being a "best friend" of the nation’s police to a political enemy of law enforcement, from federal agents at the top of the ladder to local police chiefs and police unions below. As it became more outspoken and unwilling to compromise over insignificant gun controls, it became the group it remains today, vainly claiming to be the last line against impending government tryanny.
“Once you go down that road, how do you walk that rhetoric back?” said Robert Spitzer, a gun rights historian and SUNY-Cortland’s political science department chairman.
“Obama wants to turn the idea of absolutism into a dirty word,” NRA executive director Wayne LaPierre said in a speech to Nevada hunters on Tuesday, responding to Monday’s inaugural address in which the president chastized groups like the NRA for their unending hyperbole and vitriol. “He wants to put every private, personal firearms transaction right under the thumb of the federal government… And anyone who says that’s excessive, President Obama says that’s an absolutist.”
Pro-Government Before Anti-Government
In the heat of today’s political fights, where excessive emotion, exaggerated threats and hyperbole are routine, it’s easily forgotten that the NRA once stood with government.
For much of its 143-year history, the NRA’s survival depended on a cozy relationship with the government. It relied on state subsidies at its founding and then federal subsidies for marksmanship contests for generations. The U.S. military provided free guns or sold them at cost to NRA members for decades. Thousands of soldiers helped run annual shooting contests. Local police departments turned to the NRA for training.
In the late 1960s, that relationship began to change—and so did the NRA. Democrats in Congress threatened to end a $3 million shooting competition subsidy, asking why it was needed at the height of the Vietnam War. In 1968, Congress increased the regulation of guns sales and dealers in response to that decade’s urban riots and the assassinations of Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Sen. Robert Kennedy. By 1977, these perceived slights allowed libertarian hardliners in the NRA to wrest control, ousting old-school sportsmen and claiming that America’s gun owners needed aggressive new defenders.
Today, many people forget how the NRA started calling agents at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, who were charged with enforcing federal gun laws, “Nazis” in the early 1970s and again after the 1995 bombing of the Oklahoma City federal building by NRA member Timothy McVeigh. They forget that when District of Columbia proposed a ban on handguns, an NRA member on its city council said the ban would help revive the Klu Klux Klan in nearby Maryland and Virginia. They forget that the NRA opposed banning bullets that could pierce police vests, opposed banning guns with plastic parts that were not seen by airport x-ray scanners, and launched vicious PR campaigns aimed not just at members of Congress who supported gun controls but likeminded city police chiefs.
“Conspiracy theory” is a term that at once strikes fear and anxiety in the hearts of most every public figure, particularly journalists and academics. Since the 1960s the label has become a disciplinary device that has been overwhelmingly effective in defining certain events off limits to inquiry or debate. Especially in the United States raising legitimate questions about dubious official narratives destined to inform public opinion (and thereby public policy) is a major thought crime that must be cauterized from the public psyche at all costs.
Conspiracy theory’s acutely negative connotations may be traced to liberal historian Richard Hofstadter’s well-known fusillades against the “New Right.” Yet it was the Central Intelligence Agency that likely played the greatest role in effectively “weaponizing” the term. In the groundswell of public skepticism toward the Warren Commission’s findings on the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, the CIA sent a detailed directive to all of its bureaus. Titled “Countering Criticism of the Warren Commission Report,” the dispatch played a definitive role in making the “conspiracy theory” term a weapon to be wielded against almost any individual or group calling the government’s increasingly clandestine programs and activities into question.
This important memorandum and its broad implications for American politics and public discourse are detailed in a forthcoming book by Florida State University political scientist Lance de-Haven-Smith, Conspiracy Theory in America. Dr. de-Haven-Smith devised the state crimes against democracy concept to interpret and explain potential government complicity in events such as the Gulf of Tonkin incident, the major political assassinations of the 1960s, and 9/11.
“CIA Document 1035-960” was released in response to a 1976 FOIA request by the New York Times. The directive is especially significant because it outlines the CIA’s concern regarding “the whole reputation of the American government” vis-à-vis the Warren Commission Report. The agency was especially interested in maintaining its own image and role as it “contributed information to the [Warren] investigation.”
The memorandum lays out a detailed series of actions and techniques for “countering and discrediting the claims of the conspiracy theorists, so as to inhibit the circulation of such claims in other countries.” For example, approaching “friendly elite contacts (especially politicians and editors)” to remind them of the Warren Commission’s integrity and soundness should be prioritized. “[T]he charges of the critics are without serious foundation,” the document reads, and “further speculative discussion only plays in to the hands of the [Communist] opposition.”
The agency also directed its members “[t]o employ propaganda assets to [negate] and refute the attacks of the critics. Book reviews and feature articles are particularly appropriate for this purpose.”
1035-960 further delineates specific techniques for countering “conspiratorial” arguments centering on the Warren Commission’s findings. Such responses and their coupling with the pejorative label have been routinely wheeled out in various guises by corporate media outlets, commentators and political leaders to this day against those demanding truth and accountability about momentous public events.
*No significant new evidence has emerged which the [Warren] Commission did not consider.
*Critics usually overvalue particular items and ignore others.
*Conspiracy on the large scale often suggested would be impossible to conceal in the United States.
*Critics have often been enticed by a form of intellectual pride: they light on some theory and fall in love with it.
*Oswald would not have been any sensible person’s choice for a co-conspirator.
*Such vague accusations as that “more than ten people have died mysteriously” [during the Warren Commission’s inquiry] can always be explained in some natural way e.g.: the individuals concerned have for the most part died of natural causes.
Today more so than ever news media personalities and commentators occupy powerful positions for initiating propaganda activities closely resembling those set out in 1035-960 against anyone who might question state-sanctioned narratives of controversial and poorly understood occurrences. Indeed, as the motives and methods encompassed in the document have become fully internalized by intellectual workers and operationalized through such media, the almost uniform public acceptance of official accounts concerning unresolved events such as the Oklahoma City Murrah Federal Building bombing, 9/11, and most recently the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre, is largely guaranteed.
The effect on academic and journalistic inquiry into ambiguous and unexplained events that may in turn mobilize public inquiry, debate and action has been dramatic and far-reaching. One need only look to the rising police state and evisceration of civil liberties and constitutional protections as evidence of how this set of subtle and deceptive intimidation tactics has profoundly encumbered the potential for future independent self-determination and civic empowerment.