‘Inventing terrorists’: New study reveals FBI set up terrorism-related prosecutions

originally posted by: liejunkie01
It means they are coercing these individuals to use their supplies to act out against the government, or people.

Would these people use these tactics if they didn't have the federal government suppying them with equipment or supplies?

That to me is the question.

....

My answer is dark. They do this in order to justify their job. If there are no foiled terrorist plots then there is no need spend money on said task force.

It also makes good PR and makes the average American feel like the 'War on Terror' is justified.

a reply to: charles1952

So, we have Muslim groups looking at Muslims arrested for terrorism, and what we hear is "He wuz framed!" It is possible that they were framed, that's a question for another post, but thinking that this report comes from anyone even remotely resembling a reliable source, leaves me with a dropped jaw.

Would you accept a source that isn't Russia or Muslim backed? How about the New York times?
Terrorist Plots, Hatched by the F.B.I.

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.

Or a former member of the FBI?

This brings into question at least 4 events in my mind:
1) Oklahoma City bombing.
2) '96 Olympic bombing
3) First WTC bombing
4) Boston Marathon bombing

I think that theres a reason that most questioned these events from the start.

a reply to: buster2010

I have no objection whatsoever, to the claim that the FBI (and perhaps other agencies) are facilitating plots, in effect dangling delicious bait in front of people to see who bites.

My objection was to considering the Inventing Terrorists study as a reliable, un-biased source. Perhaps my objection was a little too narrow, but I assumed that DontTreadOnMe was saying RT might not be reliable, but this study is.

Here's one of my secrets, don't let the rest of ATS know. Shhhhh! Quite often I will look at the parts of the argument one piece at a time, seeing what can be discarded and what is to be retained as truth. I hope that aids me in wading through the various arguments and helps me in finding the truth at last.

I think you deserve another post.

Post #2.

I believe this brings up the question of what, exactly, are the FBI doing? I firmly reject the suggestion that they are "coercing" anyone, at least not under the definitions of the word I've seen.

It appears they are posing as fellow terrorists and offering the means (fake) to carry out a bombing attack. If, by simple verbal persuasion, they can persuade someone to blow up an American target, an arrest seems proper. Whether the individual receives a multi-year sentence to a prison or a mental hospital is another question.

If you were given the supplies for an explosion and told, "Aw, come on. You know you want to blow up the Statue of Liberty. Here, just go do it." would you? I can think of two reasonable responses. One, say "What's the matter with you? Are you crazy?" Two, get to a phone. "Hello, FBI? I've got a crazy man looking for people to blow up the Statue of Liberty."

Surveillance of Mosques and planting undercover agents in Muslim communities is heavily frowned on, if not prohibited in certain areas. What technique would you recommend which is more likely to catch potential terrorists?

The FBI is using the same techniques against Klan members and Militia members. It was used against the Democrat State Congressman from California who was selling military weapons, including missiles, on the black market.

I would infinitely rather catch them before the explosion than after. What do you propose?

originally posted by: charles1952
Post #2.

I believe this brings up the question of what, exactly, are the FBI doing? I firmly reject the suggestion that they are "coercing" anyone, at least not under the definitions of the word I've seen.

It appears they are posing as fellow terrorists and offering the means (fake) to carry out a bombing attack. If, by simple verbal persuasion, they can persuade someone to blow up an American target, an arrest seems proper. Whether the individual receives a multi-year sentence to a prison or a mental hospital is another question.

If you were given the supplies for an explosion and told, "Aw, come on. You know you want to blow up the Statue of Liberty. Here, just go do it." would you? I can think of two reasonable responses. One, say "What's the matter with you? Are you crazy?" Two, get to a phone. "Hello, FBI? I've got a crazy man looking for people to blow up the Statue of Liberty."

Surveillance of Mosques and planting undercover agents in Muslim communities is heavily frowned on, if not prohibited in certain areas. What technique would you recommend which is more likely to catch potential terrorists?

The FBI is using the same techniques against Klan members and Militia members. It was used against the Democrat State Congressman from California who was selling military weapons, including missiles, on the black market.

I would infinitely rather catch them before the explosion than after. What do you propose?

It's very simple. These agencies receive more funding when they produce more results. The US government has been bent on domestic terrorism since 2001. Therefore better results with catching terrorists = more funding.

a reply to: Vovin

The DEA plays the same game. Most drug king pins we hear about in the newspapers are often created. Some unlucky addict is offered a deal too good to be true and BAM!!! he's busted and if he is unfortunate enough to get busted when they need a king pin to throw into the lion's den to justify their work/job, then he'll be that king pin.

There were and still are much bigger players than Escoboar......

a reply to: Vovin

Dear Vovin,

Allow me to re-ask my question. Since it was at the end of the post, you might not have noticed it.

Surveillance of Mosques and planting undercover agents in Muslim communities is heavily frowned on, if not prohibited in certain areas. What technique would you recommend which is more likely to catch potential terrorists?

The FBI is using the same techniques against Klan members and Militia members. It was used against the Democrat State Congressman from California who was selling military weapons, including missiles, on the black market.

I would infinitely rather catch them before the explosion than after. What do you propose?

With respect,
Charles1952

"My son would never do this. It is a set up. He was counselled by FBI for 5, like 3, 5 years. They knew what my son was doing, they knew what actions and what sites on the internet he was going. They used to come home, they used to come talk to me... how can this happen: how could they .. and they were counselling every step of him, and today they are telling us this is a terrorist act."



The Boston bombers Tsarnaev's mother in her panicked interview with RT, the night of the bombings. Still this interview comes across to me as one of the least scripted of commentaries pertaining to the bombing.

She points to just the issue addressed by this study. It was an interesting statement at the time, ignored by US MSM. In light of this study, perhaps some will listen more objectively to her statement.

I guess one could ask the question. What does he consider an act of war against his country? Would not only 5% percent of these crimes being designed in and of itself be considered so? How about 20%, 50% maybe? Who exactly makes the plans for this kind of stuff?

If it's true, then I'd say some people are taking their jobs way too seriously. Maybe they should take a look at what kind of crimes they are actively committing in the name of justice.

It's almost too hard even wrapping your head around stories like this. Whatever the reason it should never have become public knowledge.

Their way of looking at it would probably be like tending to your lawn. One way of completely getting rid of all the weeds is to encourage them to grow so that you can pull them all out by the roots one at a time.

a reply to: Vovin

No doubt about it.

Whether these actors are coaxed or entrapped or set up in some way, the fact that the FBI is involved in nearly every instance is very telling.

And its nothing new.

Take Emad Salem for example. He was hired by the FBI to infiltrate the Ramzi Yousef group which was involved with the world trade center plot from 1993.

The FBI told him that the bomb was fake. When it turned out that the bomb was REAL, he began to record his conversations with the FBI because he realized it was a set-up/false flag. In his broken English:

Salem: Okay. Alright. I don't think it was. If that's what you think guys, fine, but I don't think that because we was start already building the bomb which is went off in the World Trade Center. It was built by supervising supervision from the Bureau and the D.A. and we was all informed about it and we know that the bomb start to be built. By who? By your confidential informant. What a wonderful, great case!

And today, its no different.

As a matter of fact, its gotten so ridiculously blatant that the JUDGE in the case of the Newburgh Four, Colleen McMahon, indicted the government on record saying the following:

"Only the government could have made a terrorist out of Mr Cromitie, a man whose buffoonery is positively Shakespearean in its scope," she said in court. She added: "I believe beyond a shadow of a doubt that there would have been no crime here except the government instigated it, planned it and brought it to fruition."

They'll incite their own disaster, as in the bread you throw out on the water comes back to you. Who else thinks that our own government will become the terrorists in the people's minds? They will receive their own spiffy label and that somehow seems fitting.

Speaking of terrorist disasters. Wonder if it was really worth it for so many people to die in the Iraq war. Who really will be found to be the terrorists here. What should be their fate as the pendulum, so eagerly pushed, starts its return trip.

originally posted by: charles1952
a reply to: Vovin

Dear Vovin,

Allow me to re-ask my question. Since it was at the end of the post, you might not have noticed it.

Surveillance of Mosques and planting undercover agents in Muslim communities is heavily frowned on, if not prohibited in certain areas. What technique would you recommend which is more likely to catch potential terrorists?

The FBI is using the same techniques against Klan members and Militia members. It was used against the Democrat State Congressman from California who was selling military weapons, including missiles, on the black market.

I would infinitely rather catch them before the explosion than after. What do you propose?

With respect,
Charles1952

"I believe this brings up the question of what, exactly, are the FBI doing? "

Your words that I quoted and responded too.

They have been doing that for quite some time to generate fear while parading the 'terrorists' through the headlines for a while. Often you never hear from them again, at least not in the headlines. Often though you may find that the timing of their action was more than convenient and that they somehow had ties to certain secret agencies.

That are only those that are supposed to be caught, though. Operation Gladio comes to mind (yes, I know, wikipedia...), which most certainly was not supposed to be revealed.

There seems to be a question of whether this is entrapment or not.. The FBI has been known to give people all of the tools & equipment to perform a (fake) terrorist attack.. that's not the problem. The problem is when they give them a big bag of money to do it. The definition of entrapment is getting someone to do something they normally wouldn't. If you hand a person with the right combination of mental disorders, poverty, and anger at the government a big bag of money, you can probably get them to do anything. They're social engineers.

If no kind of money was exchanged, no extortion or blackmail was used, (which I doubt is never apart of these situations) then I don't have a problem with it. But again, I doubt that's the case.

The REAL terrorists are those who invent them...
Those who terrorize us with fear of terrorism as a trick for mind control and to make us accept their surveillance and control "to our own safety".

I completely concur with the idea that terrorists are only a small threat to the US. There seemed to be an ideological shift that began under Bush's administration and has continued with Obama, and at the center of it is the war on terrorism. Like the article mentioned it is about keeping people afraid, because when people are afraid they are basically more apt to give up their rights to the government. Or to phrase it another way they are more likely to think such actions justified, because who wishes to oppose the authorities when they are doing their very best to protect us from the imminent threat of a terrorist attack? The ends justify the means so to speak.

But not only is this not true, as the means are extremely important, but when the entire thing is obviously a sham to begin with it just makes things that much worse. Something people ought to think about is the fact that these programs and actions have continued under both major US political parties. What does this mean? It probably means at least two things, the first being that once a certain level of power has been attained it is extremely difficult for those who acquired it to give it up. And secondly it has to do with the ideological shift I mentioned earlier. This shift has allowed intelligence agencies to play a major role in government affairs. Essentially they have more power now than they've ever had in the past.

The problems are fairly easy to identify, but the big question is what can the people do about it? Let us be realistic here. Violent revolution, whether justified or not, is out of the question. There is not enough support for such action. That is the truth, whether it be a good thing or a bad thing. I for one would fight for my rights, and when I took the oath in the military to defend the US from all enemies, foreign and domestic, I took that to heart. The idea of revolution against a government who would disregard our rights is not something that bothers me, because I know that it would be justified. However, like I said, I am not going to go on some personal crusade or anything, because I realize that such resistance is futile. One can stand for a principle but at the end of the day RESULTS are all that matter.

Without the support of the populace the idea of fixing things via revolution is not acceptable to me. And one thing that I see many overlooking is the fact that a revolution, even if won, is not guaranteed to fix everything, or even anything at all. In fact, it could break more things. Another Civil War in America would be much more dangerous in modern times for various reasons, but one reason that is often overlooked is the fact that it would leave the entire US open to foreign invasion. The US government knows a lot about destabilizing nations, and they know that a nation overrun with civil war is vulnerable to outside influences in various forms.

So if that option is not realistic at the moment, what else is there? Many more people would have the stomach for a non-violent revolution, and even though I think such actions are futile, they must be tried. But the cold, hard truth is that there are not enough people even willing to engage the government in that regard. The truth is that there is not one thing we can do about it, realistically speaking. We can elect whomever we wish, but at the end of the day the US intelligence apparatus is still going to remain intact, and THAT is the problem we are facing. It is not so much the president or members of Congress. They could not get away with nearly as much as the intelligence community.

They probably don't even know what goes on most of the time. The president probably doesn't either, although he would know more than Congress, or at least the majority of these members. So although the government that we elect has its own problems, the true problem is something that we have no influence over. I am convinced that the only way to change things is to get so many like-minded people on one side. Ideological and political differences will however keep the US populace from uniting, unfortunately. And apathy and timidity will keep the majority away anyway. So we can complain however much we wish, but it will likely do us no good. There is at least an 80% chance that things will continue in the same fashion for at least another administration. Perhaps the people will get fed up after that, IF things continue to get worse.

Remember how I said that once power is gained it is not that easy to take away from those who gained it? Well this could work to the advantage of the people. Consider the power the intelligence community and the government in general has at the moment. It is more than administrations decades ago had. It stands to reason that not only will they not give up their newly acquired powers, they will seek more in some fashion. And this might just be enough to push more people over the edge. Only when enough people have become so fed up that they are willing to do something are things likely to change. And there just aren't enough of those types right now. Only when peoples' everyday lives have become affected to a high degree will they wish for things to return to "normal."

Could be happening right now:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Feds looking for a prepper. Or patsy?

I can recommend the lurkers and posters interested in this thread to read Michael Crichton's "State of Fear".

Great read, unfortunately it does have some climate propaganda in it, but the premise of a perpetual state of fear being a tool used to control a populace carries through the novel and has several great citations to studies seldom discussed.