It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Khalifah al-Akili, 34, was arrested in a police raid on his home on March 15. He was later charged with illegally possessing a gun after having previous felony convictions for drug dealing. However, at his court appearance an FBI agent testified that al-Akili had made radical Islamic statements and that police had uncovered unspecified jihadist literature at his home.
Yet, despite being painted in court as a dangerous radical Islamist, the only charges brought against al-Akili were for firing a rifle...
But, in a strange twist, al-Akili's arrest came just days after he had sent out an email to friends and local Muslim civil rights groups complaining that he believed he was the target of an FBI "entrapment" sting.
In the email – which was also sent to the Guardian before al-Akili was arrested – he detailed meeting two men he believed were FBI informants because of the way they talked about radical Islam and appeared to want to get him to make jihadist statements. According to his account, one of them, who called himself Saeed Torres, asked him to buy a gun. Al-Aikili said he refused. The other, who was called Mohammed, offered to help him go to Pakistan for possible Islamic radical training. Al-Akili also refused.
Al-Akili concluded his email by saying: "I would like to pursue a legal action against the FBI due to their continuous harassment and attempts to set me up." The Guardian contacted al-Akili by email and on March 14 by phone and al-Akili agreed to talk more to the Guardian about his belief that he was being set up by Hussain. But he was arrested the next day and has been denied bail as a potential threat to the public, keeping him in jail.
Al-Akili's lawyer Mike Healey believes that the FBI may have been monitoring al-Akili's emails, and possibly his phone, and then rushed to arrest him once Hussain had been identified and al-Akili had effectively gone public with his fears.
Hussain's actions became notorious among civil rights groups due to the incentives he deployed on his targets, who were local black Muslims in the impoverished town of Newburgh. They included offering one suspect $250,000, a car and a free holiday. Al-Akili said he also found a picture of Shahed Hussain on the internet and realised it was the same man as "Mohammed".
Originally posted by smyleegrl
Interesting story, and if its accurate.....then who do we trust anymore?
I do have one question, perhaps I missed the information somehow. What caused this man to suspect the men were involved with the FBI?
S&F because this needs attention.
he detailed meeting two men he believed were FBI informants because of the way they talked about radical Islam and appeared to want to get him to make jihadist statements. According to his account, one of them, who called himself Saeed Torres, asked him to buy a gun. Al-Aikili said he refused. The other, who was called Mohammed, offered to help him go to Pakistan for possible Islamic radical training. Al-Akili also refused. In the email al-Akili recounted that he obtained a phone number from Mohammed and put it into Google. The search returned a reference to the case of the Newburgh Four, where an FBI confidential informant called Shahed Hussain helped secure the convictions of four men for attempting to blow up Jewish targets in the Bronx.
I won't flame, but I will retort. For arguments sake lets say that this was a case of overzealous agents. Then we have an issue of law enforcement setting people up being promoted as a good thing. This is a fundamental issue on how we govern ourselves, and it needs to be examined either way.The other problem is that a good portion of U.S. citizens don't trust anything they hear from official sources. Maybe those officials should examine what they're doing to cause so much distrust. Or maybe they just don't really care.It's good to keep an open mind. Not everything happens for nefarious reasons. I think that the lines have been blurred so much we can't tell what's good or bad, so you have to question everything.
Originally posted by smyleegrl
This is going to get me flamed, but nevertheless,
Why does this event have to be a "false flag?" To me, the term false flag implies an intention to cause a crisis on purpose. Perhaps I misunderstand the term, if so please help me understand it better.
Can this not be a case of a couple overzealous agents (if indeed they are FBI) with a personal agenda? We are in the same type of atmosphere as the Communist Witch Hunts. Perhaps these agents were so eager to capture the "extreme Islamic terrorist" that they set this individual up....