Fake terror plots and paid informants: Welcome to the FBI

FBI targeting vulnerable people by luring them into fake terror plots.

by Paul Harris
Guardian.co.uk
November 18, 2011

David Williams did not have an easy life. He moved to Newburgh, a gritty, impoverished town on the banks of the Hudson an hour or so north of New York, at just 10 years old. For a young, black American boy with a father in jail, trouble was everywhere.

Williams also made bad choices. He ended up going to jail for dealing drugs. When he came out in 2007 he tried to go straight, but money was tight and his brother, Lord, needed cash for a liver transplant. Life is hard in Newburgh if you are poor, have a drug rap and need cash quickly.

His aunt, Alicia McWilliams, was honest about the tough streets her nephew was dealing with. “Newburgh is a hard place,” she said. So it was perhaps no surprise that in May, 2009, David Williams was arrested again and hit with a 25-year jail sentence. But it was not for drugs offences. Or any other common crime. Instead Williams and three other struggling local men beset by drug, criminal and mental health issues were convicted of an Islamic terrorist plot to blow up Jewish synagogues and shoot down military jets with missiles.

Even more shocking was that the organisation, money, weapons and motivation for this plot did not come from real Islamic terrorists. It came from the FBI, and an informant paid to pose as a terrorist mastermind paying big bucks for help in carrying out an attack. For McWilliams, her own government had actually cajoled and paid her beloved nephew into being a terrorist, created a fake plot and then jailed him for it. “I feel like I am in the Twilight Zone,” she told the Guardian.

Lawyers for the so-called Newburgh Four have now launched an appeal that will be held early next year. Advocates hope the case offers the best chance of exposing the issue of FBI “entrapment” in terror cases. “We have as close to a legal entrapment case as I have ever seen,” said Susanne Brody, who represents another Newburgh defendant, Onta Williams.

Some experts agree. “The target, the motive, the ideology and the plot were all led by the FBI,” said Karen Greenberg, a law professor at Fordham University in New York, who specialises in studying the new FBI tactics.

But the issue is one that stretches far beyond Newburgh. Critics say the FBI is running a sting operation across America, targeting – to a large extent – the Muslim community by luring people into fake terror plots. FBI bureaux send informants to trawl through Muslim communities, hang out in mosques and community centres, and talk of radical Islam in order to identify possible targets sympathetic to such ideals. Or they will respond to the most bizarre of tip-offs, including, in one case, a man who claimed to have seen terror chief Ayman al-Zawahiri living in northern California in the late 1990s.

That tipster was quickly hired as a well-paid informant. If suitable suspects are identified, FBI agents then run a sting, often creating a fake terror plot in which it helps supply weapons and targets. Then, dramatic arrests are made, press conferences held and lengthy convictions secured.

But what is not clear is if many real, actual terrorists are involved.

Read Full Article…

Military Attack on Iran could come within two weeks

U.S. Army Lt. Colonel says Iranian Plot is likely U.S. manufactured event; another attempt to create a pretext for war with Iran.

by Luis R. Miranda
The Real Agenda
October 13, 2011

Another fairy tale from the United States government is out this week. They want us to believe their story that a US informant operating as a member of the terrorist group the Zetas, aided the U.S. government to stop an Iranian attempt to murder the Saudi Arabian ambassador to the United States. As it is often the case, neither the Department of Justice, nor the FBI have shown proof that Iran had anything to do with such a plot, or that the plot is actually real. In fact, a retired U.S. Army Lt. Colonel has said the information about this plot and the plot itself may be a U.S. manufactured event. See his interview below.

Asia Times correspondent: Iranian plot was an inside job

Given the lack of proof about this supposed plot, it is only normal to ask, who would benefit from blaming Iran for this unproven plot? Certainly the War wing of the United States government, aka, the military industrial complex. International support for new sanctions on Iran would legitimize more and more a future attack on that nation by the United States, NATO or even Israel itself. In fact, the Obama administration has already asked for support from the international community to impose more sanctions on Iran as a result of their unproven discovery.

A second beneficiary of the blame game against Iran would be the Saudis themselves, who would gain even more support in the middle east and the international community. That is what people like Pepe Escobar, a correspondent for the Asia Times believes is going on here. Mr. Escobar appeared on Russia Today television to explain his perspective on who is to gain from the situation.

Back in 2009, a think-tank called the Brookings Institute wrote about how the United States would act to exercise complete hegemony over the middle east, and how part of such action would include making sure Iran was kept as a less than influential force there. In the document, the think-tank provides an insight to the policies that are currently being carried out in the middle east. “The sheer scale of the military options considered by Brookings’ strategy would be a boom alone for the defense contractors that sponsor it, whether the operation was a success or not,” says Tony Cartalucci on his blog Land Destroyer Report.

According to the New York Times, United States senior officials are struggling to explain how would the operation unit -Quds Force-, pull off an attack on an Saudi Arabian ambassador on U.S. soil. “It would be our assessment that this kind of operation would have been discussed at the highest levels of the regime,” said a senior American official, who was not authorized to speak publicly about the government’s analysis, reported the New York Times.

Attack on Iran in two weeks

Back in late 2009, the Obama administration transferred 55 bunker-buster bombs to Israel. The possession of these 55 bombs physically allows and prepares Israel to launch an attack on Iran, more specifically, its buried nuclear facilities as well as to target organizations like Hezbollah’s buried bunkers in Lebanon.

This information came from a news report published on Newsweek, which received independent confirmation via a sensitive U.S. diplomatic cable released by WikiLeaks last month.

In November 2009 U.S. and Israeli senior military personnel met to discuss the delivery of the 55 GBU-28 bunker busting bombs to Israel, while saying that the shipment of the weapons should be done secretly to avoid public scrutiny against the United States government.

An FBI insider and close aide to Colonel Anthony Shaffer said there were no records of a supposed plot to attack anyone on U.S. soil. The fact that no secret information on the plot exists only reinforces the idea that the supposed plot was a fake and that blaming Iran for it while the U.S. arms Israel might result on an open-ended attack against Iran.

According to some U.S. Army sources, personnel is being deployed to the middle east in order to collaborate with the logistics of an attack to be launched in the Persian Gulf. Together with former and current military personnel, former intelligence and black operations operative Steve Pieczenik agrees that this is the greenest light he’s seen when it comes to launch an attack on Iran.

“I have to say that all of this that came out of Mexico where an Iranian wants to kill a Saudi Arabian is completely absurd,” said Pieczenik on the Alex Jones Show. “There is no reason for Israel to receive bunker buster bombs. Obama is creating another incident like George W. Bush did when he had the lowest ratings of his presidency.”

When asked about about the possibility of an attack on Iran within two weeks, Pieczenik said that the United States was aiding a plot to be carried out by Israel against Iran. “Israel will be seriously affected. Iran will cause a lot of trouble against Israel. The middle east will explode in conflict. The Israeli people have to go to streets to stop the israeli military from attacking Iran,” he added. Pieczenik also called on former and current members of Mossad to come out and speak against the attack on Iran.

No Longer Free, No Longer Brave

Except for a tiny minority, the United States population is composed of government dependent, ideologically insane, reality ignorant people who are no longer free nor brave.

by Katerina Azarova
Russia Today
September 9, 2011

As terrorists struck New York on September 11th, the United States vowed to fight back and protect their country, their people and their freedom. But 10 years on, it seems that freedom is just an illusion, and the US is becoming an Orwellian state.

When George W Bush spoke about the necessity of “protecting the homeland of our country”, he probably thought that the homeland was literally just that – a land that one calls home. And while most people focused on the fact that the then US president had once again made a grammatical blunder, many saw a hidden danger in his statement – not only because of the Big Brother-type security changes ahead, but also because of the very nature of the word “homeland”.

Merriam-Webster defines “homeland” as “a state or area set aside to be a state for a people of a particular national, cultural, or racial origin.” Now, that really doesn’t apply to one of the youngest countries in the world, which has no shared cultural or racial origin. Dig a little deeper and many linguists will tell you of the word’s decidedly Teutonic origin. A blend of two proto-Germanic words “kham” (home) and “landan” (land), a homeland does not unite people by ideas or beliefs. It ties them firmly to the land. It is a concept that has little to do with patriotism – despite the fact the words do share common Greek roots – and, ironically, it was used ad nauseam by the US government in the post-9/11 world. Ironic because it’s patriotism that is more applicable to the concept of the United States as a nation – one where people of all cultures and backgrounds come together for shared ideas, opportunities and beliefs. And one of the key ideas that most people chose to make the US their home was one much propagated by President Ronald Reagan. The idea of freedom.

Reagan once said that “above all, we must realize that no arsenal or no weapon in the arsenals of the world is as formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women. It is a weapon our adversaries in today’s world do not have.” But 20 years after Reagan was sworn in, the terrorist attacks of September 11th happened – and George W Bush decided that there are weapons more appropriate than freedom.

Because freedom – that greatly advertised American concept – was effectively taken away from the people, with the creation of the Department of Homeland Security. Under the new Patriot Act, The Federal Bureau of Investigation began probing almost every second of every life in the country and when people wanted to leave the country, the Transport Security Administration probed them. The Big German-sounding Brother was fully established, the people living in the ‘land of the free’ under surveillance at all times.

The Patriot Act is probably one of the most controversial pieces of legislature in American history. An acronym that, for all the old and new security bureaus, Provides Appropriate Tools Required (to) Intercept (and) Obstruct Terrorism. But the tools included in the bill weren’t – and still aren’t –considered appropriate by many. Wiretaps and electronic surveillance were legalized. Arrests were made on a daily basis. When the number of those detained reached 1200, officials stopped counting. Personal records no longer remained personal – and that was only the domestic beginning.

What followed – and still continues today – may be labeled by politicians as a ‘war on terror’ or ‘defense of their people’, but really it is just shy of a full-scale military offensive on multiple countries.

While the Department of Homeland Security watched over the land of the no-longer-free, the Central Intelligence Agency, together with the Department of Defense, took the war on terror overseas. The result? Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay and multiple ‘black sites’ across Europe, where prisoners and suspected terrorists were tortured, abused and killed. Since 9/11, more than 600 men have been brought to Guantanamo Bay prison alone – and only one has so far been charged.

Many will argue that this is in fact proof of the Patriot Act’s success. But there is a logical issue. The act’s objective is to prevent attacks on America by bringing terrorists under state control – not to investigate or prosecute past cases. Therefore, any evaluation of the Patriot Act requires the disproving of a negative. If there have been no further Al-Qaeda attacks on the United States, it may mean that the act has done its job. But if there are no attacks, how does one prove they were “prevented” by the Patriot Act?

Numerous statements by US politicians have strived to provide some believable data. Former Attorney General John Ashcroft, an avid supporter of the act, dismissed doubts and claims of freedom violations as “hysteria” and claimed no less that “3000 foot soldiers of terror have been incapacitated” since the act’s implementation. No matter that no group or person had independent access to basic information about these alleged terrorists and their alleged plots.

Officially, 1200 special interest detainees were held and investigated under the Patriot Act. The Justice Department examined more than 700 of them, and none was ever linked to any terrorist group or plot. Nevertheless, upon his resignation in 2004, Ashcroft’s letter stated that “The objective of securing the safety of Americans from crime and terror has been achieved.” This should have meant the end of the Patriot Act, for it included a “sunset” provision, to expire in December 2005. Seven years later, it’s still in place and regularly being enforced…not necessarily for a war against terror.

Statistics show that the so-called sneak-and-peak, a search warrant that can be executed without prior warning, is mostly used for drug-related crimes. Between 2006 and 2009, 1618 delayed-search warrants were issued for drugs, 122 for fraud – and only 15 (!) for terrorism.

All this is being done in the name of protection of American soil and citizens. Of protecting their most valued asset, freedom. George W Bush claimed that the war on terror was necessary “for the freedom of the homeland”. But instead of inspiring faith, he only intensified the fear residing within every American citizen since 9/11, for his words sounded a lot like those of another historic leader.’

“What we have to fight for…is the freedom and independence of the fatherland, so that our people may be able to fulfil the mission assigned to it by the Creator.” – Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf.

Associated Press: Americans to cause coming Terrorism

Just as the Department of Homeland Security, Barack Obama and the corporate media have propagandized for the past couple of months, Associated Press is now echoing the talking point that Americans are the next Terrorists that will attack their own land. No proof of this has been shown.

Associated Press
September 10, 2011

WASHINGTON (AP) — Al-Qaida may have sent American terrorists or men carrying U.S. travel documents to launch an attack on Washington or New York to coincide with memorials marking the 10th anniversary of 9/11, government officials say.

One U.S. official says al-Qaida dispatched three men, at least two of whom could be U.S. citizens, to detonate a car bomb in one of the cities. Should that mission prove impossible, the attackers have been told to simply cause as much destruction as they can.

Word that al-Qaida had ordered the mission reached U.S. officials midweek. A CIA informant who has proved reliable in the past approached intelligence officials overseas to say that the men had been ordered by newly minted al-Qaida leader Ayman al Zawahri to mark the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks Sunday by doing harm on U.S. soil.

The tipster says the would-be attackers are of Arab descent and may speak Arabic as well as English. Counterterrorism officials were looking for certain names associated with the threat, but it was unclear whether the names were real or fake.

Counterterrorism officials have been working around the clock to determine whether the threat is accurate, but so far, have been unable to corroborate it, the officials said, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss the investigation.

In the meantime, extra security was put in place to protect the people in the two cities that took the brunt of the jetliner attacks that killed nearly 3,000 people at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon a decade ago. It was the worst terror assault in the nation’s history, and al-Qaida has long dreamed of striking again to mark the anniversary. But it could be weeks before the intelligence community can say whether this particular threat is real.

Undaunted by talk of a new terror threat, New Yorkers and Washingtonians wove among police armed with assault rifles and waited with varying degrees of patience at security checkpoints Friday.

Security worker Eric Martinez wore a pin depicting the twin towers on his lapel as he headed to work in lower Manhattan where he also worked 10 years ago when the towers came down. “If you’re going to be afraid, you’re just going to stay home,” he said.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg, too, made a point of taking the subway to City Hall.

Briefed on the threat Friday morning, President Barack Obama instructed his security team to take “all necessary precautions,” the White House said. Obama still planned to travel to New York on Sunday to mark the 10th anniversary with stops that day at the Pentagon and Shanksville, Pa.

Washington commuters were well aware of the terror talk.

Cheryl Francis, of Chantilly, Va., said she travels over the Roosevelt bridge into Washington every day and doesn’t plan to change her habits. Francis, who was in Washington on Sept. 11, 2001, said a decade later the country is more aware and alert.

“It’s almost like sleeping with one eye open,” she said, but she added that people need to continue living their lives.

The intelligence community regularly receives tips and information of this nature. But the timing of this particular threat had officials especially concerned, because it was the first “active plot” that came to light as the country marked the significant anniversary, a moment that was also significant to al-Qaida, according to information gleaned in May from Osama bin Laden’s compound.

The U.S. government has long known that terrorists see the 10th anniversary of 9/11 and other uniquely American dates as opportunities to strike. Officials have also been concerned that some may see this anniversary as an opportunity to avenge bin Laden’s death.

Britain, meanwhile, warned its citizens who are traveling to the U.S. that there was a potential for new terror attacks that could include “places frequented by expatriates and foreign travelers.”

Acutely aware of these factors, law enforcement around the country had already increased security measures at airports, nuclear plants, train stations and more in the weeks leading up to Sept. 11. The latest threat, potentially targeting New York or Washington, prompted an even greater security surge in those cities. U.S. embassies and consulates abroad had also boosted their vigilance in preparation for the anniversary.

At Penn Station in New York, transit authority police carried assault rifles and wore helmets and bullet proof vests as they watched crowds of commuters. Police searched passengers’ bags as they entered the subway, and National Guard troops in camouflage fatigues moved among riders, eyeing packages.

In Washington, Police Chief Cathy Lanier warned that unattended cars parked in suspicious locations or near critical buildings and structures would be towed.

Speaking in New York, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said there was “a specific, credible but unconfirmed report that al-Qaida, again, is seeking to harm Americans and in particular, to target New York and Washington.”

Is a New American Reichstag in the Works?

By Luis R. Miranda
The Real Agenda
August 17, 2011

That is what chatter coming from the United States government seems to suggest. A few weeks ago, we reported on how a video from the Department of Homeland Security(DHS) incited fear of ‘white Al-Qaeda’ terrorists and just a day after publication, Anders Breivik blew up a government building in Oslo, Norway.

The U.S. government is preaching the idea that a new Oklahoma City style attack is coming.

Since Oslo, the very same Department of Homeland Security has put out a new Public Service Announcement where they go at it again. The white American is the threat. Somehow the U.S. Government found a way to move the threat from Islamic fundamentalists to Americans who support Constitutionalism.

In the new ad, DHS presents new ‘white faces’ while calling for a high state of vigilance from the part of the citizenry to report any ‘suspicious’ or ‘out of the ordinary’ activity. As in previous occasions, no clear definition of ‘suspicious’ or ‘out of the ordinary’ is given. This technique, as we reported before, is a psychological operation to instigate fear and distrust on the public so that they not only accept the government’s message of fear, but also turn against their neighbors and family members and tattle tale about their questioning of government policies.

Back in the days of the infamous Nazi party, Adolf Hitler used the false threat of a foreign force planning to attack Germany in order to push the public to accept his insane power grab, that ended in the death of Jews, Christians, and any other members of groups that opposed his policies. Hitler only failed on his attempt to take over Europe and the world, because his handlers had already achieved their goal to ramp up the war movement by playing Hitler against other military forces.

The threat of a ‘lone wolf’ style terror attack in the United States then is the solution to save the drastically faded Obama presidency. If you think this is insane, take a look at this article on the Financial Times of London, where Robert Shapiro, a former White House aide to Bill Clinton suggested that barring a terror attack, the Obama administration was doomed. We must add to this Barack Obama’s own assessment which included his thought that the United States could absorb another terror attack of the size of 9/11.

Yesterday, Barack Obama came out to reinforce even more the supposed threat of homegrown terrorism during an interview on CNN. While responding to a comment from Wolf Blitzer, Obama identified the possibility that a single person could cause a major terror attack. “We are vigilant and constantly monitoring the threat of a terrorist attack… The risk is always there… The risk we are concerned now is the ‘lone wolf’ threat, a single person with a weapon, someone being able to carry out the type of massacre we saw in Norway recently.” Of course, it has been proven that Anders Breivik did not act alone. In fact, even main stream media reports confirm that Breivik called police several times to turn himself in before the attacks.

A couple of days ago, New York Times writer Paul Krugman came out and suggested the United States would benefit greatly if a new threat such as the invasion of aliens happened because it would allow the government to launch wars and therefore revive the economy. This train of thought would be funny if it wasn’t because what Krugman suggested was exactly the agenda carried out in World Wars I and II. Upon the evident economic crisis, the Globalists decided to play nations against nations in order to spur manufacturing of war machinery, create jobs within the military industrial complex and start fresh again after the wars were over. But at what human cost?

What does the new DHS Ad say?

Picking up where they left off a few weeks ago, the Department of Homeland Security headed by Secretary Janet Napolitano, continues its fear mongering campaign to get people to accept the next big terrorist attack and the Police State measures that will stem from it.

In the video, DHS shows a white young man driving a cab. He stops by what seems to be a bus or train station, opens the trunk of the cab and activates what appears to be an explosive device. At the same time, two passengers inside the station see a suspicious looking woman walking inside the station as she flies by them. And guess what, she’s white, too. A white man who observes the white taxi driver walking away from the cab is then shown talking to a police officer in a supposed attempt to denounce the suspicious activity.

What can we get from this? When looked at it in more than one dimension, it is clear that once again the DHS intends to portray whites as dangerous, especially white middle class people. In order to understand this trick, one needs to connect the ad to the current financial situation, where mostly middle class and the poor (taxi drivers and public transportation users) are being robbed of their future. Everywhere in the world, it is the middle and poor class the ones rising up against the Globalist attempt to further consolidate economic and military power. After Anders Breivik allegedly attacked the federal building in Oslo, authorities beefed up security in the capital and other cities in Norway. After the last riots in London, in another Problem, Reaction, Solution scheme, a crowd of criminals attacked local businesses and homes. The British government decided to use face recognition technology on the streets to scan and store imagery from anyone who “may be or act suspicious”. Previous to the attacks, police stood down and let the looters do whatever they wanted and now they want to scan everyone’s faces.

Back in the United States the corporate prostitute media continues to eco Obama’s speech about the threat of a ‘lone wolf’ attack. On Tuesday, CBS News said the next attack would not come from Islamic terrorists, but from a member of the “Sovereign Citizen” movement in the United States, that is everyone calling for the end of the Federal Reserve, the end of the wars, the reactivation of the economy, the adoption of sound fiscal and monetary policies and the end of interventionism and empire building. Going by the recent polls, this group of people now labeled as “dangerous” by the federal government, includes a powerful minority who is armed and ready to defend their rights to speak freely, own and carry weapons to protect themselves and their families from rising crime, public protest against insane government policies and anyone who supports Ron Paul and anyone and anything that smells like Constitutionalism.

Naturally, the government knows that it does not take a majority to get the government back to the people, but a really well-educated and armed minority to eject the current invaders who occupy the United States of America, or for that matter every other country in the western world. That is why the government continues to move initiatives to discretely ban the second amendment carrying out stings in gun shows and invading private property to look for legally held fire arms. Obama himself is an “in the closet” gun grabber. So are Rick Perry and Mitt Romney. In April, the newspaper the Star-Tribune reported that the Federal Bureau of Investigation is spying on citizens in Wyoming to keep tabs on their use of fire arms. FBI agent Kathy Wright said that “the bureau has kept an eye on the movement because some sovereigns have taken the logical step from belief in the illegitimacy of the current system to acting violently against it.”

What could come from a situation where a disarmed society is unable to protect itself from crime and the abuses of government? Ask relatives of people who survived the Nazi atrocities, ask the people of Oklahoma City, the people from Virginia Tech, from New York, and more recently from Norway. What could stem from an educated society that freely carries fire arms to defend itself? Ask the citizens of Switzerland and Texas.