Evidence Emerges Showing FBI Was Behind 2015 ISIS Terror Attack in Texas

With the shooting in LV and the many questions that seem to be unanswered here is another story of duplicity by one of our government agencies.
Yes an old story but a new lawsuit..

www.activistpost.com...

In May 2015, two men opened fire outside of a provocative “Draw Muhammad” event in Garland, Texas. While the suspects were ultimately the only casualties, the attack is notable in that it became the first ISIS-claimed attack on American soil. It is also notable, because of the close proximity between an FBI agent and one of the suspects—both before and during the attack.

Bruce Joiner, a security guard who was shot and wounded after Elton Simpson and Nadir Soofi opened fire outside of the event, is now suing the FBI for $8 million. He has filed a lawsuit claiming that FBI agents “solicited, encouraged, directed and aided members of ISIS in planning and carrying out the May 3 attack.”

As the Washington Examiner noted, if Joiner does not reach a settlement with the Bureau, “the case could shake loose hundreds of documents from both local and federal officials about what happened that day, and could answer the question of why an FBI agent was in a car directly behind the attackers and did nothing as the events unfolded.”

All they need is a federal judge to dismiss the case which would not surprise me ... or claim national security etc etc

We live in a world of which we must survive in and accept. Sometimes it is best to say WTF and walk away alive.

a reply to: 727Sky

Are you deliberately blurring the line between a law enforcement agency mounting a sting operation to ensnare terrorists and one that actually planned an attack against citizens for some covert motive? Because that's what you are implying by your headline.

a reply to: 727Sky

Fast & Furious v2.0

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: 727Sky

Are you deliberately blurring the line between a law enforcement agency mounting a sting operation to ensnare terrorists and one that actually planned an attack against citizens for some covert motive? Because that's what you are implying by your headline.

What sort of undercover sting involves watching the suspects attempt to murder others and not act? That's a pretty good chance to deal with the suspects?

originally posted by: sg1642

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: 727Sky

Are you deliberately blurring the line between a law enforcement agency mounting a sting operation to ensnare terrorists and one that actually planned an attack against citizens for some covert motive? Because that's what you are implying by your headline.

What sort of undercover sting involves watching the suspects attempt to murder others and not act? That's a pretty good chance to deal with the suspects?

We have an allegation that an FBI agent was present. We do not know if there was or not, or if there was, whether he was there in an official capacity. The timing on this post seems designed to imply that the Las Vegas massacre was a government plot.

Interesting story. I have to admit, I have been on to what I think is an “ISIS conspiracy.” You can’t really express it publically or you are considered insane. But, I look at how it developed, and how it was encouraged to develop (2012 Pentagon briefing). How it is funded by our allies in Saudi Arabia and Qatar (Wikileaks). How a recent Bulgarian journalist essentially proved that the CIA helped get arms to ISIS in Syria.

Assange recently implied that the FBI is behind most major shootings. I think he is right. This should shed a little light unto what we are being told currently about Vegas, at least for some people whom are awake.

FBI has been accused of this for years. Where there's smoke, there's fire.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: 727Sky

Are you deliberately blurring the line between a law enforcement agency mounting a sting operation to ensnare terrorists and one that actually planned an attack against citizens for some covert motive? Because that's what you are implying by your headline.

Not my headline but the authors.. Rachel Blevins has several ways to contact her... No doubt she would love hearing from someone with so strongly held opinions.... why don't you contact her and express your displeasure:

Rachel Blevins is a Texas-based journalist who aspires to break the left/right paradigm in media and politics by pursuing truth and questioning existing narratives. Follow Rachel on Facebook, Twitter and YouTube. This article first appeared at The Free Thought Project.

youtu.be...

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: sg1642

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: 727Sky

Are you deliberately blurring the line between a law enforcement agency mounting a sting operation to ensnare terrorists and one that actually planned an attack against citizens for some covert motive? Because that's what you are implying by your headline.

What sort of undercover sting involves watching the suspects attempt to murder others and not act? That's a pretty good chance to deal with the suspects?

We have an allegation that an FBI agent was present. We do not know if there was or not, or if there was, whether he was there in an official capacity. The timing on this post seems designed to imply that the Las Vegas massacre was a government plot.

When a government official sends a text message to a terror suspect encouraging him to 'tear up texas' quote unquote, don't you think there are maybe problems with how they do business?

originally posted by: sg1642

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: sg1642

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: 727Sky

Are you deliberately blurring the line between a law enforcement agency mounting a sting operation to ensnare terrorists and one that actually planned an attack against citizens for some covert motive? Because that's what you are implying by your headline.

What sort of undercover sting involves watching the suspects attempt to murder others and not act? That's a pretty good chance to deal with the suspects?

We have an allegation that an FBI agent was present. We do not know if there was or not, or if there was, whether he was there in an official capacity. The timing on this post seems designed to imply that the Las Vegas massacre was a government plot.

When a government official sends a text message to a terror suspect encouraging him to 'tear up texas' quote unquote, don't you think there are maybe problems with how they do business?

I do not think the FBI should be conducting sting operations at all. Their track record shows it to be a bad idea.

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: sg1642

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: sg1642

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: 727Sky

Are you deliberately blurring the line between a law enforcement agency mounting a sting operation to ensnare terrorists and one that actually planned an attack against citizens for some covert motive? Because that's what you are implying by your headline.

What sort of undercover sting involves watching the suspects attempt to murder others and not act? That's a pretty good chance to deal with the suspects?

We have an allegation that an FBI agent was present. We do not know if there was or not, or if there was, whether he was there in an official capacity. The timing on this post seems designed to imply that the Las Vegas massacre was a government plot.

When a government official sends a text message to a terror suspect encouraging him to 'tear up texas' quote unquote, don't you think there are maybe problems with how they do business?

I do not think the FBI should be conducting sting operations at all. Their track record shows it to be a bad idea.

It isn't unreasonable to reword sting operations to handling operations.

a reply to: 727Sky

I'd suggest its time Joiner"s wife took out a very big life insurance policy.

All this is just as possible as any other theory, our governments play in the same beds as ISIS when its suits them, the war of terror becomes the war to help terror when they see fit.

One day perhaps not in our life time or even the next generations life time we may finally see the files and I think so many people are going to be stunned by just how much they took for granted was NOT the way it looked and we will all realise that at the time our governments were more dangerous to us than the terrorists.

originally posted by: sg1642

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: sg1642

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: sg1642

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: 727Sky

Are you deliberately blurring the line between a law enforcement agency mounting a sting operation to ensnare terrorists and one that actually planned an attack against citizens for some covert motive? Because that's what you are implying by your headline.

What sort of undercover sting involves watching the suspects attempt to murder others and not act? That's a pretty good chance to deal with the suspects?

We have an allegation that an FBI agent was present. We do not know if there was or not, or if there was, whether he was there in an official capacity. The timing on this post seems designed to imply that the Las Vegas massacre was a government plot.

When a government official sends a text message to a terror suspect encouraging him to 'tear up texas' quote unquote, don't you think there are maybe problems with how they do business?

I do not think the FBI should be conducting sting operations at all. Their track record shows it to be a bad idea.

It isn't unreasonable to reword sting operations to handling operations.

The question is: why? What strategy would that tactic support? People already accept unreasonable constraints in the name of security. Why stage yet another random attack that does not lead to further legislation or enhanced police powers?

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: sg1642

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: sg1642

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: sg1642

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: 727Sky

Are you deliberately blurring the line between a law enforcement agency mounting a sting operation to ensnare terrorists and one that actually planned an attack against citizens for some covert motive? Because that's what you are implying by your headline.

What sort of undercover sting involves watching the suspects attempt to murder others and not act? That's a pretty good chance to deal with the suspects?

We have an allegation that an FBI agent was present. We do not know if there was or not, or if there was, whether he was there in an official capacity. The timing on this post seems designed to imply that the Las Vegas massacre was a government plot.

When a government official sends a text message to a terror suspect encouraging him to 'tear up texas' quote unquote, don't you think there are maybe problems with how they do business?

I do not think the FBI should be conducting sting operations at all. Their track record shows it to be a bad idea.

It isn't unreasonable to reword sting operations to handling operations.

The question is: why? What strategy would that tactic support? People already accept unreasonable constraints in the name of security. Why stage yet another random attack that does not lead to further legislation or enhanced police powers?

I can think of suppressor legislation, Bump fire stocks, Magazines that hold more than some feel good made up amount.. Anything the color of black needs to be outlawed and then the pistols will be next.. Just off the top of my head.. Security and the millions of man hours and dollars spent is probably enough motivation for some...

originally posted by: 727Sky

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: sg1642

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: sg1642

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: sg1642

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: 727Sky

Are you deliberately blurring the line between a law enforcement agency mounting a sting operation to ensnare terrorists and one that actually planned an attack against citizens for some covert motive? Because that's what you are implying by your headline.

What sort of undercover sting involves watching the suspects attempt to murder others and not act? That's a pretty good chance to deal with the suspects?

We have an allegation that an FBI agent was present. We do not know if there was or not, or if there was, whether he was there in an official capacity. The timing on this post seems designed to imply that the Las Vegas massacre was a government plot.

When a government official sends a text message to a terror suspect encouraging him to 'tear up texas' quote unquote, don't you think there are maybe problems with how they do business?

I do not think the FBI should be conducting sting operations at all. Their track record shows it to be a bad idea.

It isn't unreasonable to reword sting operations to handling operations.

The question is: why? What strategy would that tactic support? People already accept unreasonable constraints in the name of security. Why stage yet another random attack that does not lead to further legislation or enhanced police powers?

I can think of suppressor legislation, Bump fire stocks, Magazines that hold more than some feel good made up amount.. Anything the color of black needs to be outlawed and then the pistols will be next.. Just off the top of my head.. Security and the millions of man hours and dollars spent is probably enough motivation for some...

Has any of these draconian laws ever passed? No? And if they did, would not being able to own a suppressor ruin deer hunting for you? You certainly wouldn't need one to defend yourself from the killer drones they will send to get the rest of your arsenal if Alex Jones is finally right.

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: 727Sky

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: sg1642

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: sg1642

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: sg1642

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: 727Sky

Are you deliberately blurring the line between a law enforcement agency mounting a sting operation to ensnare terrorists and one that actually planned an attack against citizens for some covert motive? Because that's what you are implying by your headline.

What sort of undercover sting involves watching the suspects attempt to murder others and not act? That's a pretty good chance to deal with the suspects?

We have an allegation that an FBI agent was present. We do not know if there was or not, or if there was, whether he was there in an official capacity. The timing on this post seems designed to imply that the Las Vegas massacre was a government plot.

When a government official sends a text message to a terror suspect encouraging him to 'tear up texas' quote unquote, don't you think there are maybe problems with how they do business?

I do not think the FBI should be conducting sting operations at all. Their track record shows it to be a bad idea.

It isn't unreasonable to reword sting operations to handling operations.

The question is: why? What strategy would that tactic support? People already accept unreasonable constraints in the name of security. Why stage yet another random attack that does not lead to further legislation or enhanced police powers?

I can think of suppressor legislation, Bump fire stocks, Magazines that hold more than some feel good made up amount.. Anything the color of black needs to be outlawed and then the pistols will be next.. Just off the top of my head.. Security and the millions of man hours and dollars spent is probably enough motivation for some...

Has any of these draconian laws ever passed? No? And if they did, would not being able to own a suppressor ruin deer hunting for you? You certainly wouldn't need one to defend yourself from the killer drones they will send to get the rest of your arsenal if Alex Jones is finally right.

I can tell you have never spent a day at a gun range or in a shooting competition... If you had your comment would not be so uninformed about a suppressor.. Suppressors and good for those around you (as far as the noise level) and good for not making one go prematurely deaf even with a noise cancelling headset which gets very uncomfortable on a hot day of prolonged shooting. The guys I used to shoot with would burn through one to 3000 rounds in one weekend.. This was done in competition and practice leading up to the competition.

As far as gun laws go there are plenty already; some are good and some are stupidly uninformed as California and Illinois comes to mind..

Free country and you can think whatever.. It is usually better to say something if you are informed on the subject... MSN/CNN is not a good source nor is Hillary

a reply to: 727Sky

You didn't answer the questions you just called me misinformed.

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: sg1642

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: sg1642

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: sg1642

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: 727Sky

Are you deliberately blurring the line between a law enforcement agency mounting a sting operation to ensnare terrorists and one that actually planned an attack against citizens for some covert motive? Because that's what you are implying by your headline.

What sort of undercover sting involves watching the suspects attempt to murder others and not act? That's a pretty good chance to deal with the suspects?

We have an allegation that an FBI agent was present. We do not know if there was or not, or if there was, whether he was there in an official capacity. The timing on this post seems designed to imply that the Las Vegas massacre was a government plot.

When a government official sends a text message to a terror suspect encouraging him to 'tear up texas' quote unquote, don't you think there are maybe problems with how they do business?

I do not think the FBI should be conducting sting operations at all. Their track record shows it to be a bad idea.

It isn't unreasonable to reword sting operations to handling operations.

The question is: why? What strategy would that tactic support? People already accept unreasonable constraints in the name of security. Why stage yet another random attack that does not lead to further legislation or enhanced police powers?

maybe they want to increase the hate towards Muslims 🙄?