What would it take for you to commit mass murder in the name of Allah? Â Â Would you do it for money? For love? Out of a sense of justice? Out of a sense of religious duty? Â Absurd as it may seem, these are serious questions. Its the age of Obama…..
Terrorist Plots, Hatched by the F.B.I.
By DAVID K. SHIPLER/April 28, 2012
THE United States has been narrowly saved from lethal terrorist plots in recent years â€” 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 naÃ¯vely played their parts until they were arrested.
When an Oregon college student,Â 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 â€” 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 â€” comments to an informer outside a mosque, angry postings on Web sites, e-mails with radicals overseas â€” 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, andÂ 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.
David K. Shipler is the author of “Rights at Risk: The Limits of Liberty in Modern America.”
NY Times: FBI Hatches Hundreds of Terror Plots.
This is the blurb attached to the Youtube clip:
In the wake of the bombing, Boston became a training ground for martial law: suspension of constitutional rights, militarized lockdown. Some photos here:http://www.infowars.com/this-
Then they went for some Hollywood shock and awe, besieging a guy who was bleeding to death, acting like it was combat in Fallujah, guns blazing, emptying cartridges.
The Tsarnaevs are obvious patsies.
The reason the FBI gave, to blame and then burn them in the media, is they were photographed wearing backpacks identical to the ones that went off.
If that is so, then WHY are guys in paramilitary uniforms all over the Marathon, working with police and FBI, wearing the *exact same model of backpacks* these two guys had? The same is true for a large number of civilians (photos in links below). This requires explanation. It’s the stepping stone of truth, the point that proves or disproves the FBI’s claim.
As reported, the explosions coincided with a *bombing drill* that was going on at the Marathon. The paramilitary guys are probable consultants, either military or contractors. They’re uniformed in khaki and black, no agency logos, identical backpacks to the ones the Tsarnaevs wore. They’re amidst the crowd, seen working with police and FBI and operating a communications vehicle.
Drills tend to include civilian participants, hired to play a part in the exercise. That’s probably why there were so many civilians with the exact same backpacks there.
*The bombs went off during the drill, as usual in false-flag terror events*. Staged terror is usually perpetrated by black operations units, acting within government agencies. The goal is to create massÂ psychosocial trauma, so as to allow for repressive measures. Historically, bombing drills are settings of choice for false-flag attacks (ex. Operation Gladio; FSB bombings in Moscow). The drill offers the human and logistic cover for REAL bombs to be inconspicuously planted. When the bombs go off, the black ops agents who planted the bombs simply vanish, while the blame is put on patsies.
Let’s go for a tentative scenario of what might have gone on during the Marathon.
This is a standard bomb drill. It goes on at a live public event, so as to make it realistic for the agencies involved. So, there are heavy security measures. National Guard, FBI, snipers on roofs, bomb dogs, bomb consultants (guys in paramilitary outfits). These guys are all wearing identical backpacks, the “danger item” [bomb] to spot. There are multiple hired crisis actors wearing identical backpacks. All are mixed in with the crowd. This is most likely a regular exercise, where the goal is to trace and identify all the danger items, the backpacks, throughout the Marathon.
Then two backpacks actually go off.Â Unbeknownst to most of the (naive) participants, there was a black operations group working the drill, to pull off a false-flag terror attack.
**The brothers could only have been in the *drill setting*, with the drill backpacks, as either naÃ¯ve participants or as double agents, dupes, willing fools. In this last case, they would be patsy tools in a terror plot. In the former, they’d be naÃ¯ve patsies**
This is all done with high-level clearance. So, in the next days, the great priority of the investigation is to create cover stories. They have MSM make irrelevant the fact there was a drill. They even beat the drum for the fake “homegrown” line.
Then they go at the publicly available photographs of the event and pick THOSE showing the brothers.Â Yet they leave out the ones showing paramilitary guys and civilians who are wearing the exact same model of backpacks. They state they will ignore those.
They then make the brothers’ faces public, sentence them in the media and, in a very ugly move, appeal to civilians and cops alike to go for a manhunt. The kind of stuff you had during feudal times. Now reedited for the neo-feudal, communitarian society.
This is what’s done with patsies.
Tamerlan is dead. Dzhokhar has been caught and, judging by past events, it’s very unlikely you will ever get to hear his side of the story.
You have to note the Obama era expresses a creeping approach to terror and violence: a multitude of “minor” staged events, hundreds of sting setups, many small wars across the globe. This is far more creeping and destructive than the desperado approach of the Bush years, with one Hollywood-type event, shock and awe, bring’em on.
What comes out of all this is the eventual generalization of false-flag terror, ubiquitous violence, the militarization of society. That’s where we’re going, unless people snap out of apathy and stand up for what’s right, individually and in mass.
While I do not accept everything published by “Infowars”, I do think that Obama wants to impose a “state of emergency”, in order to increase his powers. USA citizens accept reduced freedoms, when they are scared.
There is support for this sort of concern from reputable leaders, such asÂ State Rep. Stella Tremblay.Â She also expressed concerns about the official story about “911” and the Benghazi attack.