Foreshadows of 9/11 in the '93 WTC Bombing and the '95 OKC Bombing?
These subjects have largely been the realm of right-wing groups such as Free Republic and others, in the same way 9/11 critics have come from the left. Generally partisans will disbelieve scandals or conspiracies coming from their own president, and will tend to believe dirt coming from a president of the opposing party. Thus we have Clinton critics talking about conpsiracies with the '93 WTC bombing and the '95 OKC bombing.
The important point is that because these conspiracies have a partisan nature, doesn't mean they are wrong. I will grant that there is some substance to charges of government conspiracy in the '93 WTC bombing and the '95 OKC bombing. But, in the same way I find it hard to believe President Bush actively knew about the 9/11 plot, I find it hard to believe Clinton knew of the '93 WTC bombing and the '95 OKC bombing plots.
The point is that there seems to be something relatively non-partisan here-- almost institutional in the FBI and CIA. That is, these agencies frequently conspire to "make things happen"-- another term for this is sting operation.
There are reasons to think that there were elements of a sting operation in the 9/11 attacks, just as there clearly was a sting operation involved in the '93 WTC bombing. There is similar evidence for a sting operation with the '95 OKC bombing.
What is highly disturbing is that the "sting" type of operation allows the government to essentially have a hand in perpetrating terror attacks, but have an obvious patsy and also have some deniability in any wrong doing since they were trying to "catch the bad guys".
I don't have time to go much further on this topic, but a key question I have is who controls these "sting operations" and what exactly is their goal? I have a strong suspicion these operations are less about catching criminals than about putting on a show for the public and manipulating news for political ends. Moreover, I have a strong feeling the these operations are often allowed to "go bad", letting attacks occur-- on purpose.
The important point is that because these conspiracies have a partisan nature, doesn't mean they are wrong. I will grant that there is some substance to charges of government conspiracy in the '93 WTC bombing and the '95 OKC bombing. But, in the same way I find it hard to believe President Bush actively knew about the 9/11 plot, I find it hard to believe Clinton knew of the '93 WTC bombing and the '95 OKC bombing plots.
The point is that there seems to be something relatively non-partisan here-- almost institutional in the FBI and CIA. That is, these agencies frequently conspire to "make things happen"-- another term for this is sting operation.
There are reasons to think that there were elements of a sting operation in the 9/11 attacks, just as there clearly was a sting operation involved in the '93 WTC bombing. There is similar evidence for a sting operation with the '95 OKC bombing.
What is highly disturbing is that the "sting" type of operation allows the government to essentially have a hand in perpetrating terror attacks, but have an obvious patsy and also have some deniability in any wrong doing since they were trying to "catch the bad guys".
I don't have time to go much further on this topic, but a key question I have is who controls these "sting operations" and what exactly is their goal? I have a strong suspicion these operations are less about catching criminals than about putting on a show for the public and manipulating news for political ends. Moreover, I have a strong feeling the these operations are often allowed to "go bad", letting attacks occur-- on purpose.
posted by spooked at 8:19 AM
1 Comments:
Similarly, CIA drug trade is often rationalized as being a necessary evil for deep cover operations. But it appears that the scope of the malfeasance is actually much broader and longstanding.
Post a Comment
<< Home