(Stillness in the Storm Editor) The following is an article published in the New York Times openly admitting that the FBI fabricated terrorist plots since the War on Terror began shortly after the September 11th, 2001 attacks. But the federal agency has had a long history of fabricating plots and entrapping hapless dupes.
What the FBI did was entrap innocent people into performing terrorist acts, or got them to commit to doing so. These individuals, in most cases, would not have been able to get as far as they did without the FBI’s involvement. In other words, if it wasn’t for the FBI’s participation, these so-called terrorists would have remained harmless.
Granted these individuals were obviously preconditioned to become radicalized, which we could say about almost anyone living on Earth today, but this is not a valid cause to imprison or persecute someone. It’s not even pre-crime because they didn’t have the intention to commit the act until coming in contact with the FBI. And for the agency to claim it is protecting the people, while never openly revealing their involvement, is a breach of the public’s trust.
Therefore, in simple terms, this is an example of fraud and propaganda tactics employed by the government against the people. The people are the primary targets because the whole effort is designed to cause fear and from that place, the masses seek out authorities, relinquish freedoms, and oppress “suspects” all in the name of protection and security.
The mafia practices the same tactics in that, they cause harm to a person and then tell them they need the mafia’s protection from future attacks. The exact same situation is occurring here, except that authorities stop the would-be terrorist before hand, and then blanket the media with another War on Terror success story.
It’s all a confidence game; and since most people never question the official story, it is one that is hugely successful.
Is it truly lawful to bait innocent people into becoming would-be terrorists? No, it is not; although it is legal.
The FBI is culpable for what happened, they played a direct role and as such they are partially responsible. But this isn’t real justice, it’s manufactured fake justice. It allows the people to continue to feel good about condoning the War on Terror and all the insanity that it causes. Millions of people have been killed, imprisoned and violated all in the name of “keeping people safe.”
In addition, it would be very easy for these events, which involve real explosives, targets, and planned attacks, to be pushed through so as to further justify the War on Terror.
Considering how many false flag attacks have occurred over the years, usually associated with crisis actors and military or government drills, then it stands to reason some of them may have cases where entrapped individuals were allowed to carry out the attack to further a political agenda.
The recent Orlando shootings a the Pulse nightclub could be an example of this. Omar Mateen, the so-called lone wolf shooter, was actively being watched by the FBI since 2013. In addition, he was working for one of the largest military contractors on the planet (known as mercenaries in days of old), G4S.
Related G4S did not psychologically re-evaluate Omar Mateen after FBI questioning
How easy would it be for the masterminds of these fabricated terrorist plots to “forget to arrest” the suspect, and let the plan go through to completion? And in doing so, the FBI and all those involved would be culpable for any damages and losses incurred.
In the age of deception, seeking the truth can be a rebellious act.
Please share the following article with those who are ready to comprehend its importance.
Rarely do we have such a glaring example of the frauds of our age so clearly articulated in the mainstream media. And since the unawakened tend only to believe what comes from so-called official news outlets, this article has a great potential to catalyze awakening in others.
Terrorist Plots, Hatched by the F.B.I.
by David K Shipler | April 28th, 2012
The United States has been narrowly saved from lethal terrorist plots in recent years — or so it has seemed. A would-be suicide bomber was intercepted on his way to the Capitol; a scheme to bomb synagogues and shoot Stinger missiles at military aircraft was developed by men in Newburgh, N.Y.; and a fanciful idea to fly explosive-laden model planes into the Pentagon and the Capitol was hatched in Massachusetts.
But all these dramas were facilitated by the F.B.I., whose undercover agents and informers posed as terrorists offering a dummy missile, fake C-4 explosives, a disarmed suicide vest and rudimentary training. Suspects naïvely played their parts until they were arrested.
When an Oregon college student, Mohamed Osman Mohamud, thought of using a car bomb to attack a festive Christmas-tree lighting ceremony in Portland, the F.B.I. provided a van loaded with six 55-gallon drums of “inert material,” harmless blasting caps, a detonator cord and a gallon of diesel fuel to make the van smell flammable. An undercover F.B.I. agent even did the driving, with Mr. Mohamud in the passenger seat. To trigger the bomb the student punched a number into a cellphone and got no boom, only a bust.
This is legal, but is it legitimate? Without the F.B.I., would the culprits commit violence on their own? Is cultivating potential terrorists the best use of the manpower designed to find the real ones? Judging by their official answers, the F.B.I. and the Justice Department are sure of themselves — too sure, perhaps.
Carefully orchestrated sting operations usually hold up in court. Defendants invariably claim entrapment and almost always lose, because the law requires that they show no predisposition to commit the crime, even when induced by government agents. To underscore their predisposition, many suspects are “warned about the seriousness of their plots and given opportunities to back out,” said Dean Boyd, a Justice Department spokesman. But not always, recorded conversations show. Sometimes they are coaxed to continue.
Undercover operations, long practiced by the F.B.I., have become a mainstay of counterterrorism, and they have changed in response to the post-9/11 focus on prevention. “Prior to 9/11 it would be very unusual for the F.B.I. to present a crime opportunity that wasn’t in the scope of the activities that a person was already involved in,” said Mike German of the American Civil Liberties Union, a lawyer and former F.B.I. agent who infiltrated white supremacist groups. An alleged drug dealer would be set up to sell drugs to an undercover agent, an arms trafficker to sell weapons. That still happens routinely, but less so in counterterrorism, and for good reason.
“There isn’t a business of terrorism in the United States, thank God,” a former federal prosecutor, David Raskin, explained.
“You’re not going to be able to go to a street corner and find somebody who’s already blown something up,” he said. Therefore, the usual goal is not “to find somebody who’s already engaged in terrorism but find somebody who would jump at the opportunity if a real terrorist showed up in town.”
And that’s the gray area. Who is susceptible? Anyone who plays along with the agents, apparently. Once the snare is set, law enforcement sees no choice. “Ignoring such threats is not an option,” Mr. Boyd argued, “given the possibility that the suspect could act alone at any time or find someone else willing to help him.”
Typically, the stings initially target suspects for pure speech — comments to an informer outside a mosque, angry postings on Web sites, e-mails with radicals overseas — then woo them into relationships with informers, who are often convicted felons working in exchange for leniency, or with F.B.I. agents posing as members of Al Qaeda or other groups.
Some targets have previous involvement in more than idle talk: for example, Waad Ramadan Alwan, an Iraqi in Kentucky, whose fingerprints were found on an unexploded roadside bomb near Bayji, Iraq, and Raja Khan of Chicago, who had sent funds to an Al Qaeda leader in Pakistan.
But others seem ambivalent, incompetent and adrift, like hapless wannabes looking for a cause that the informer or undercover agent skillfully helps them find. Take the Stinger missile defendant James Cromitie, a low-level drug dealer with a criminal record that included no violence or hate crime, despite his rants against Jews. “He was searching for answers within his Islamic faith,” said his lawyer, Clinton W. Calhoun III, who has appealed his conviction. “And this informant, I think, twisted that search in a really pretty awful way, sort of misdirected Cromitie in his search and turned him towards violence.”
THE informer, Shahed Hussain, had been charged with fraud, but avoided prison and deportation by working undercover in another investigation. He was being paid by the F.B.I. to pose as a wealthy Pakistani with ties to Jaish-e-Mohammed, a terrorist group that Mr. Cromitie apparently had never heard of before they met by chance in the parking lot of a mosque.
“Brother, did you ever try to do anything for the cause of Islam?” Mr. Hussain asked at one point.
“O.K., brother,” Mr. Cromitie replied warily, “where you going with this, brother?”
Two days later, the informer told him, “Allah has more work for you to do,” and added, “Revelation is going to come in your dreams that you have to do this thing, O.K.?” About 15 minutes later, Mr. Hussain proposed the idea of using missiles, saying he could get them in a container from China. Mr. Cromitie laughed.
Reading hundreds of pages of transcripts of the recorded conversations is like looking at the inkblots of a Rorschach test. Patterns of willingness and hesitation overlap and merge. “I don’t want anyone to get hurt,” Mr. Cromitie said, and then explained that he meant women and children. “I don’t care if it’s a whole synagogue of men.” It took 11 months of meandering discussion and a promise of $250,000 to lead him, with three co-conspirators he recruited, to plant fake bombs at two Riverdale synagogues.
“Only the government could have made a ‘terrorist’ out of Mr. Cromitie, whose buffoonery is positively Shakespearean in its scope,” said Judge Colleen McMahon, sentencing him to 25 years. She branded it a “fantasy terror operation” but called his attempt “beyond despicable” and rejected his claim of entrapment.
The judge’s statement was unusual, but Mr. Cromitie’s characteristics were not. His incompetence and ambivalence could be found among other aspiring terrorists whose grandiose plans were nurtured by law enforcement. They included men who wanted to attack fuel lines at Kennedy International Airport; destroy the Sears Tower (now Willis Tower) in Chicago; carry out a suicide bombing near Tampa Bay, Fla., and bomb subways in New York and Washington. Of the 22 most frightening plans for attacks since 9/11 on American soil, 14 were developed in sting operations.
Another New York City subway plot, which recently went to trial, needed no help from government. Nor did a bombing attempt in Times Square, the abortive underwear bombing in a jetliner over Detroit, a planned attack on Fort Dix, N.J., and several smaller efforts. Some threats are real, others less so. In terrorism, it’s not easy to tell the difference.
About The Author
David K. Shipler is the author of “Rights at Risk: The Limits of Liberty in Modern America.”
Stillness in the Storm Editor’s note: Did you find a spelling error or grammar mistake? Do you think this article needs a correction or update? Or do you just have some feedback? Send us an email at [email protected]. Thank you for reading.
This article was originally published under the headline “Terrorist Plots, Hatched by the F.B.I.”