Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Is FBI Entrapment Inventing 'Terrorists'?

Posted 2 years ago on May 19, 2012, 5:28 p.m. EST by jph (2652)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

How FBI Entrapment Is Inventing 'Terrorists' - and Letting Bad Guys Off the Hook; http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/national-affairs/how-fbi-entrapment-is-inventing-terrorists-and-letting-bad-guys-off-the-hook-20120515#ixzz1vLweinHr

They pull this sht,. and their media spews the spins and lies. standard tactic of discredit by association,. transparent and more than a little bit sad. perhaps we should capture some corporate criminals using similar means,. . I mean since it is acceptable and all.

29 Comments

29 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by CryptoFreak (4) from Tulsa, OK 2 years ago

The ones they create are the easiest to catch...

Of course the FBI is inventing terrorists. How else can they keep the public afraid and willingly pumping money into the statist 'security machine'"? The question is, how long are Americans going to remain sheep who obediently lead themselves to the slaughter? When will Americans wake up and realize it's all theater?

[-] 2 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

This is the logical end of the Orwellian state we've erected since 9/11 ... although it is sort of surprising that they're moving so quickly in eroding our liberty. A government crony must have read 1984 and said, damn, we're behind schedule .

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

apparently, some vestiges of al quada still exist in Yemen

we have been bolstering hatred of americans by lobbing bombs there

[-] 1 points by timirninja (263) 2 years ago

nice men. i like that. Many Teletubbies in America believes that if car flippes over in accident it must be exploded in 5-10 sec. How much bleach needed to blow up the bridge? that is the fucking question! !! where the exploision comming from? South America? Canada? From China oversea? i dont think so. http://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DyszKc4m-W9U&sa=X&ei=pPy4T5n8HObG6AGapNz1Cg&ved=0CFQQuAIwAQ&usg=AFQjCNFB-b9ZHg9slKV_7BJZp3tAFbjBHg

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

the US

same place the anthrax came from

gasoline has lots of energy

[-] 1 points by jbgramps (159) 2 years ago

Nope, the FBI is not inventing terrorists. They are arresting them. Would you have rather they allowed the guys to blow up a bridge and probably kill people? Would you rather they let the Black Blocs in burn cops car, police stations and homes? The FBI is protecting the public and you should commend them for doing such a good job.

Think about it. Are you going to be so understanding of terrorists when they blow up a building and kill people like Timothy McVeigh?

Be aware, if you’re looking for a war against the public there are approximately 85 million gun owners in America, with an estimated 260 million privately owned guns. And most of them are hard core conservatives. Be careful what you wish for.

[-] 4 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 2 years ago

The bridge incident in Ohio was manufactured; the FBI basically talked the guys into blowing up the bridge then even provided them fake explosives, etc.

The so-called terrorists may have done nothing but blow hot air if the FBI had not egged them on.

Don't get me wrong; I appreciate the job the FBI and other police agencies do in protecting the public, but at the same time, I'm not afraid to object loudly when I believe a police agency has overstepped the legal bounds.

A free society lives at risk of dangerous individuals, unless we're all willing to sacrifice some of our freedoms. I am not willing to do that, not for some bogeyman in the closet, not to live in fear of terrorists: domestic or foreign.

Regarding gun ownership, I wouldn't bet that just conservatives own guns.

[-] 1 points by jbgramps (159) 2 years ago

I doubt either of us know enough details of the bridge blowing case to reach any conclusion. However, I don’t automatically assume entrapment. I agree there’s nothing wrong with protesting a bad police action. But if you’re pre-disposed to think the cops are bad you probably have skewed vision. That’s not thinking objectively.

You’re right about dangerous individuals. We live in a increasing dangerous society. I attribute the large number of guns to public awareness of that fact. We actually seem to agree on a lot. I legally own and carry lots of guns; and I’m about as liberal as they come (with exception of gun rights).

My main point is the FBI are the good guys; and to discredit them because you don’t agree with some of their actions is wrong.

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

again, did you read the article? no one would have blown up anything if a skilled manipulator of people was not sent in to encourage this tact..,
This has zero to do with catching violent 'terrorists', in fact it is an act of terrorism. a political stunt, with no regard for those roped into association with criminal intent brought by the FBI. the intent is to justify the police state, and discredit vocal opposition to that power.

The "terrorists? you are so easily turned on your own fellow citizens? first they came for the dupe-able angry youth,. and what is this "conservative have guns" rhetoric about?,. what are you supposing, some sort of civil warfare? this is a story of how a skilled federal agent manipulated some dupes into plotting a criminal act. you know entrapment, a crime in itself. but I know we gotta get them nasty 'terrorists',. right.

[-] 1 points by jbgramps (159) 2 years ago

Sounds like we won’t agree. And I say again, I doubt either of us know enough facts about the bridge bombing case to draw a conclusion. It sounds like you don’t like law enforcement and will accept anything that supports your view. It think you are stating personal opinion rather than looking for facts.

Based on what little information has been made available about this case my “opinion” is these guys would have blown the bridge and probably injured or killed people. I’m glad the FBI was able to stop them in time. For what it’s worth I feel the same about the Black Blocs in Chicago. Both cases are a good example of the FBI protecting the public from domestic terrorists.

On the issue of guns. Apparently I said it badly, but my point is that when terrorists, whether they be OWS, Black Blocs, Florida white supremiests or Timothy McVeigh, they are violent terrorists. The public won’t support them; and will fight back to protect themselves.

No civil war, no class warfare, no war over political ideology war. Probably more a war for personal survival, which very well be bloody. Cold, scared, hungry people are dangerous and will do whatever they have to take care of their family.

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

I see, you have rather dim view of your fellow humans,. I suppose this is why you would be easily propagandized into supporting the fear-mongering police state, while being blind to its actual mechanization, even given some of them in writing.

When the FBI is recruiting hardened criminals (with the promise of lesser sentencing), to 'find terrorists',. they will entrap some of the slower-witted, and rightfully angry youth by coaching them into schemes they never would have imagined or had the resources (provided) to undertake on their own. Some people are just easily lead, this is a result of our education system and culture.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago

Been tweeting the #DomesticWarfare today. Will continue to do so until people can admit to themselves that when the military and/or military tactics are used on a population, it is exactly that. There is no other word to describe the use of military or related resources and tactics on a population but war. Thats what it is and that is the definition.

war /wôr/

Noun:

 1

a (1) : a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations (2) : a period of such armed conflict (3) : state of war

b : the art or science of warfare

c (1) obsolete : weapons and equipment for war (2) archaic : soldiers armed and equipped for war

 2

a : a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism

b : a struggle or competition between opposing forces or for a particular end <a class war> <a war against disease>

[-] -2 points by jbgramps (159) 2 years ago

Not clear on what you mean about using military tactics on the population. When did this happen? How did I miss that? What I have seen is law enforcement trying to control explosive and dangerous situation; even arresting some who commit crime. But that was just a few militant anarchists.

Saying the “population” is being warred upon would lead one to believe tanks and armor were rolling thru the streets knocking down building and shooting citizens on site. I haven’t heard of such occurrence.

Face it. There is no war on the citizens.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (26671) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

No we are not Syria. Not yet. But we see where legal protest is under attack by those in power.

How long does it take to devolve further?

A failed Article V convention? Stolen and Trashed Constitution?

Or just let things go on as they are and not confront the corrupt.

[-] -1 points by jbgramps (159) 2 years ago

What does that have to do with unfairly trashing the FBI?

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (26671) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Who unfairly trashed the FBI?

Secret police are to be feared.

So watch the events.

Are all operations above board?

You bet there are a ton of real criminals.

There are also those in power who do not like the public protest that is happening.

There are real terrorists loose in the world.

There are convenient circumstances to put down lawful protest as well.

Why have the economic criminals not been arrested?

The evidence is clear. JPM just threw damning evidence to the prosecution - Ooops. Where are the arrests where are the investigations.

To big to fail? Fine arrest the criminals seize assets separate the investment from the banking. WallStreet can continue just properly regulated busted up into manageable chunks and with the criminals removed and divested of their assets.

We are here today with people protesting in the streets because our government and our legal system has so far failed us "THE PEOPLE".

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

did you even read the article? entrapment is illegal,. we all know there are weak minded individuals easily lead, and there are, well skilled manipulators of people facing charges, willing to work for the police, to be sentenced lesser. This is not a type of operation to protect anyone, it is manipulating people into being associated with criminal activity, for propaganda purposes. actual violent behavior is ignored, no one is "protected". this is dark police state activity and in must not be tolerated.

[-] 0 points by jbgramps (159) 2 years ago

Sounds like we’re beating a dead horse on this topic. You think it was entrapment and I think it was the FBI arresting terrorists. So I’ll leave it at that. However, I’m pretty sure the majority think the FBI prevented an act of terrorism.

[-] 2 points by VQkag (930) 2 years ago

The majority is not always correct. Some may be jumping to conclusions regarding entrapment, just as you are jumping to conclusions assuming the FBI were correct. I believe it is too early to say, but I lean towards entrapment. I also think we should avoid using the term terrorist. to do so immediately puts us in collusion with the powers that want to use fear to get the "majority" to aquiesse and cooperate. And we allow many civil rights to be ignored. Support OWS. Non violent protest!

[-] -2 points by eboz987 (-7) 2 years ago

"Support OWS" my ass, VQkag, you pro-regime plant: In Chicago dozens of OWS protesters have been arrested and hundreds abused by a fascist police force taking orders from Democratic Mayor blocking a peaceful protest before a Democratic President.

[-] 2 points by VQkag (930) 2 years ago

Police abuse is a serious problem that must be addressed through brave protesters standing peacfully, getting beaten, and winning court cases. Changing the atmosphere that allows police stormtrooper tactics will take years. We must be brave, peaceful, the police will make a mistake the courts will find in our favor and things may change. The party is irrelevent. The people have the power to change things it takes years. It takes pain. It may require death. I'm sorry. I don't make the rules. It is the way it is. Stand strong! Be brave! Love your enemy! Support OWS. vote out anti liberal judge appointing politicians

[-] -2 points by eboz987 (-7) 2 years ago

Why don't you save yourself some keystrokes and just type "Vote for Obama" every time you post, Obamapologist!

[-] 2 points by VQkag (930) 2 years ago

never said it, wouldn't say it. Vote your interests. Take back our govt. Support OWS. Vote out anti evolution politicians

[-] -2 points by eboz987 (-7) 2 years ago

"Vote for Obama" is the only "position" you've got, VQkag. "Never said it" my ass. You say it a hundred different ways...

[-] 1 points by VQkag (930) 2 years ago

you have nothing to offer but immature, repetitive, misdirection. You take no stand on any issues. I end every post with an issue that matters. I guess you disagree in all of them, in which case you are obviously a partisan republican. support OWS. Vote out anti gay politicians!

[-] -2 points by fred234 (8) 2 years ago

You fooled some, VQkag. But not many, and not for long...

We must ignore 1% operatives like VQkag trying to keep us focused on issues that divide us and not the issues that unite us. Keep focusing on the wedge issues that divide us and the two-party tyranny built around them, and the 1% stay in power. Deal with them long enough for the People to unite and destroy our oppressors, and when the fight is over they may not even be wedge issues anymore.

[-] 2 points by VQkag (930) 2 years ago

how about immigrants?. You got a problem with them too? Support OWS Vote out anti immigrant politicians

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

I am "pretty sure" post thinking people understand that event for what it clear was,. the military/police state working to justify its budget, and to start to shift the 'war on terror' from over seas, right back HOME, created an event that could not have happened with out their input. Why is more than half the budget in hands of the military/police state apparatus? is the wanted or needed? by whom??

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]