White supremacist radio host Hal Turner was an FBI informant, as hackers claimed a year ago

reply to post by TrueAmerican


If Hal Turner was really an FBI informant why then would he be on trial?

reply to post by Lemon.Fresh


encyclopediadramatica.com...
(Not the most unbiased site I know lol)

They had been making these claims for quite some time. Whether that is coincidence or not, I couldnt say.

Originally posted by Kanati
Why is it that this Hal guy gets arrested for calling for murder of someone, but Michael Reagan can not only call for the killing of someone
ie Mark Dice, but also say he would provide the ammo. Yet this cat doesn't even loose his job. Something smells rotten in Denmark to me.

I've been saying the same thing for the last month. What Reagan did is much worse and i hope Hal Turner's lawyers bring that up, esp to the media.

I remember 4 years ago when Bill O'reilly called for al aqaida to launch a terror attack on San Francisco and he got a way with that.!!

"And if al-Qaida comes in here and blows you up, we're not going to do anything about it. We're going to say, look, every other place in America is off limits to you, except San Francisco. You want to blow up the Coit Tower? Go ahead," O'Reilly continued, referring to the 1933 San Francisco landmark that sits atop Telegraph Hill.

www.msnbc.msn.com...

Originally posted by tamaransd


If Hal Turner was really an FBI informant why then would he be on trial?

You think the cops care about their informants??? They'll turn on them whenever it suits them. Understand that most informants don't actually work for the cops or the FBI or whatever. Most informants have been compromised in some way and are blackmailed into informing. Maybe Turner was arrested on a weapons charge years ago and the govt told him "be an informant for us or it's 20 years".

I agree with most that it would seem that he is a disinfo agent for the FBI (or controlled opposition as someone put it--sounds better). You could just say that he's rolled on a few people here and there that either call into the show or post comments on his blog. But it makes much more sense for him to say outrageous things to draw out the more extreme citizens and then turn them in.

I was JUST talking about this in another thread: abovetopsecret.com

I actually even mentioned Turner and his calls for murdering judges. I wondered aloud if they are giving "orders" to programmed people.

I won't go much deeper than that because that's not for this thread.

One poster mentioned that this may be his defense: Since he's an informant for the FBI, he was just doing his job by helping to draw out crazies.

The problem with this is that a previous rant about murdering Judges actually resulted in someone murdering the very Judge he targeted:

nytimes.com

[Judge Lefkow] was immediately vilified. Hal Turner, an ''underground'' radio personality who broadcasts on a shortwave signal, said on his show that Judge Lefkow was ''worthy of being killed,'' adding that ''it wouldn't be legal, but in my opinion it wouldn't be wrong.''

Addressing the issue of free speech in this matter--Let's say he's not an informant and just a hateful bigot. He crossed a line when he post pics and addresses of Judges he wanted killed. When he made a call to take up arms against legislators, that's up for debate. I don't think he crossed a line there. But when you target specific people, give out there information as a resource to anyone who would be willing to do exactly what you are suggesting, you just solicited someone to commit murder.

I see it as just the same as hiring a hit man. The only difference is he didn't meet someone face to face and give a pic and address. But he basically put out an ad: "Seeking hit man to knock off a few pesky judges. I don't care who it is but here's a picture and their addresses. Offering $0 because the satisfaction of murdering these Jew lovers should be enough."

(Disclaimer: I am acting as if I'm Turner putting out an ad. I'm not condoning the murdering of anyone who can be seen as a Jew lover by a racist bigot.)

Originally posted by TrueAmerican


But with this in mind, that Hal Turner is an FBI informant, and thus the proverbial "controlled opposition" that so many have alluded to lately, can anyone here think of any other very well known radio hosts that might fit the same category?

Glenn Beck
Rush Limbaugh
Sean Hannity
michael mmedved
michael savage
lars larson

and on the left

ed schultz
randy rhodes
rachel maddow
thom hartmann

Originally posted by Make Speed Limit 45

Originally posted by Kanati
Why is it that this Hal guy gets arrested for calling for murder of someone, but Michael Reagan can not only call for the killing of someone
ie Mark Dice, but also say he would provide the ammo. Yet this cat doesn't even loose his job. Something smells rotten in Denmark to me.

I've been saying the same thing for the last month. What Reagan did is much worse and i hope Hal Turner's lawyers bring that up, esp to the media.

To point out that someone else got away with the same crime you are on trial for is no defense. It's very childish, and to use this as a defense, you might as well tell the judge you're waiving the 5th amendment.

Most "gunnies" are cowards and traitors so this doesn't surprise me in the least. When the shtf they will be among the first to advance on thier position with arms and white flags held high.

Originally posted by nasdack24k


Glenn Beck
Rush Limbaugh
Sean Hannity
michael mmedved
michael savage
lars larson

and on the left

ed schultz
randy rhodes
rachel maddow
thom hartmann

There's a pretty big difference, though, between the left and right talkers you mentioned. I wouldn't deny that I'm pretty biased about this, but those you mentioned on the left are not anywhere near as hateful and dramatic as those on the right. The righties often call for violence against the left. The lefties just get mad and upset but not usually to the point of screaming and hollering like a banshee on their shows. They don't call for the murdering or bombing of those they don't agree with.

Ever notice how there are FAR more right wing talk shows than left? I used to be able to hear Ed Schultz everyday on the AM. But, suddenly, during the heat up of the election season he was off the air. He's not come back. He was replaced by Lars Larson of all people. I live in a pretty conservative area so it didn't surprise me much.

I have to say, does anyone else find it odd that, throughout history, it's almost always those that can be seen as liberals or at least to have been targeted for expressing a liberal ideology are the ones who almost always get shot at and murdered? Off the top of my head, the only one I can think of as not fitting into that statement is Ronald Reagan.

But seriously:

Abe Lincoln
JFK
MLK Jr.
John Lennon

more recently:
Judge Lefkow targeted by white supremacists
The people at the Holocaust Museum
The members of the Unitarian Church last year
Dr. Tiller

I'm sure there's more, but you see what I'm getting at.

reply to post by nunya13


I'm not going to argue with you, because you're right.

Personally, talk radio can be entertaining for me, but it usually gets grating after a while.

Although I put him on the list, I do respect Thom Hartmann because he won't trash talk anybody who's not on his show to defend themselves. Everyone else on my list is the exact, polar opposite of that.

I listed all those names though, because here's the thing. They all are participants in the hegelian controlled conflict game.

People always go on ATS and talk about mind control and public manipulation. MKULTRA and Psychic Driving..

You want mind control? Doublethink? Listen to talk radio during your morning commute, or watch ANYTHING on tv. You want Psychic driving? You got it. Turn on the radio or MTV or anything with a catchy beat running in the background. TV. There's never not music playing on tv. And don't forget to take your -whatever pills you take- with a nice, big, glass of tap water.


Sorry for the rant, but If you wish to keep yourself abreast of the issues, quit listening to the radio. All it is is opinion.

And to keep this post on topic:
I'm not surprised to hear that anybody in media is a plant. Does that surprise you?

[edit on 7/29/2009 by nasdack24k]

Originally posted by nasdack24k

Originally posted by Make Speed Limit 45


I've been saying the same thing for the last month. What Reagan did is much worse and i hope Hal Turner's lawyers bring that up, esp to the media.

To point out that someone else got away with the same crime you are on trial for is no defense. It's very childish, and to use this as a defense, you might as well tell the judge you're waiving the 5th amendment.

It may not impress the judge but it's still a good point and it will have an affect on the public. If you were arrested for adultery i'm sure you'd scream that it's unfair to enforce anti-adultery laws against you but not against others.

Maybe i'm alone in this...but....

Who in the hell is Hal Turner?

You know what..I don't want to know. Don't bother with flooding me with the info....white supremacist is all the information I need.

reply to post by nasdack24k

Glenn Beck Rush Limbaugh Sean Hannity michael mmedved michael savage lars larson

and on the lef

t ed schultz randy rhodes rachel maddow thom hartmann

I've never heard of Michael MMedved or Lars Larson....nor have I ever heard of Randy Rhodes.

Most on that list are scum though...I do like one guy in particular though....

And that's Thom Hartmann. Why?

Because he's one of the very few who rails against the CORPORATE MEDIA, CORPORATE POWER, and corruption in Congress. He's a "liberal" host...and although I'm a leaning conservative/libertarian.....I feel he is sincere......but I certainly don't agree with everything he says....as he is politically biased in his constant railing against Conservative minded people.

Originally posted by Kaytagg
reply to post by Blaine91555

 

I don't care about him. I care about his (and my) right to free speech.

I think that's essentially why people are interested in this at all.

I don't think encouraging murder or inciting people to take up arms is a free speech issue. He has every right to his hateful Racist rhetoric, not to use his position to encourage violent acts.

So let me get this right someone can be employed by the FBI to incite violence, and the Patriot ACT does not apply. Yet, the whole purpose of this is to get others to come out of the wood work. It sounds like entrapment to me.

Originally posted by Blaine91555
[
I don't think encouraging murder or inciting people to take up arms is a free speech issue. He has every right to his hateful Racist rhetoric, not to use his position to encourage violent acts.

So you're saying supporters of the Iraq war should be imprisoned.?

"reply to post by nunya13

I'm not going to argue with you, because you're right.
Personally, talk radio can be entertaining for me, but it usually gets grating after a while."

I hope this isn't a departure from the thread, but I must say I used to find Rush to be more informative, entertaining and substantial than now. I don't know what happened to him. I don't listen to him much now, though I'm a booster of his in conversations. Has anyone else noticed this? Can anyone explain to me how Rush has become degraded over time? I don't believe my perception has changed. During his earlier years, he made a powerful impression on me, and you could say I got a good mental image of his "signature", if you will. Incidentally, re the list of left/right talk show hosts, Hannity and Medfly both once subbed for Rush.

Just something to think about!.... With the fear of censoring happening with all the alternative radio talk show hosts, This could be a way to do it. Rather than taking them off the air, and upsetting all of the right wingers. This could be a smarter way, turn the audience against them, not trust them, ect. the problem takes care of itself!

reply to post by TrueAmerican


I don't believe Michael Reagan is any kind of informant, but he claimed that Mark Dice should be shot and he'd buy the bullet a year ago.



Personally, I believe Hal Turner pulled this stunt on purpose so not only do we have to deal with Hatespeech laws, but, apparently, laws pertaining to Political speech, as the media pundits are calling it.

reply to post by WhamBamTYM


If you want the truthful answer, it's because he stopped doing drugs. During his peak Rush was doing a ridiculous amount of oxycontin which essentially acts in some people like a "speed" drug. Since he got caught and was forced to get off the stuff, he hasn't been as fiery or relevant.

www.cnn.com...

Michael Reagan has been proven in the past of spouting propaganda and pushing disinfo about his father's administration and right wing causes in general. I didn't even know he was on the air anymore.

[edit on 16-8-2009 by CuriousSkeptic]