The point is that terrorist acts were encouraged/arranged by the FBI for whatever hidden agenda.
For example the one that is the subject of this topic, the "let it happen" conspiracies.
Oh really? Maybe I've been uninformed.
Did I say "equal"?
Encouraging something is the opposite of letting it happen?
Here's a story on it from 2011
A lengthy investigative report by Human Rights Watch and Columbia Law School’s Human Rights Institute entitled “Illusion of Justice” takes on the controversial “sting” operations that law enforcement officials have defended as an essential element of the federal government’s counterterrorism strategy.
Separately, Al Jazeera aired an in-depth documentary on Sunday called “Informants,” which included interviews with some of the informants with shady backgrounds that have worked sting cases for the FBI. And HBO’s “The Newburgh Sting," airing Monday night, closely scrutinizes a high-profile terrorism case in which four upstate New York men were accused in 2009 of plotting to bomb Bronx synagogues and destroy airplanes.
Alex Jones has been spinning this for a while - characterizing the sting operations as the FBI creating actual terror attacks.
But in its commonly understood usage, FBI entrapment is a widespread tactic. Within days of the 9/11 terror attacks, FBI director Robert Mueller issued a memo on a new policy of "forward leaning – preventative – prosecutions".
Central to that is a growing informant network. The FBI is not choosy about the people it uses. Some have criminal records, including attempted murder or drug dealing or fraud. They are often paid six-figure sums, which critics say creates a motivation to entrap targets. Some are motivated by the promise of debts forgiven or immigration violations wiped clean. There has also been a relaxing of rules on what criteria the FBI needs to launch an investigation.
Often they just seem to be "fishing expeditions". In the Newburgh case, the men involved met FBI informant Shahed Hussain simply because he happened to infiltrate their mosque. In southern California, FBI informant Craig Monteilh trawled mosques posing as a Muslim and tried to act as a magnet for potential radicals.
But it's not the opposite.
The older story you quoted only talks about informants.
andIn the case of the “Newburgh Four,” for example, who were accused of planning to blow up synagogues and attack a US military base, a judge said the government “came up with the crime, provided the means, and removed all relevant obstacles,” and had, in the process, made a terrorist out of a man “whose buffoonery is positively Shakespearean in scope.”
Has this also been known for years?The FBI often targeted particularly vulnerable people, including those with intellectual and mental disabilities and the indigent. The government, often acting through informants, then actively developed the plot, persuading and sometimes pressuring the targets to participate, and provided the resources to carry it out.
No, that was not the impetus for doing what the police did in any of these cases. They were not promoting terrorism. They were overzealously trying to pin terrorism charges on Muslims notably for acts which never took place. That's a far cry from planning an actual terrorist action.
They will, and have, and that is what is commonly referred to as wrong. This relates to a supposed plot by govt to create the attacks, not allow a separate third party to carry out that party's in house plan.
Let it happen on purpose does not imply an active role in the planning of an operation.
OK. If none of these terrorist acts actually happened (all were prevented in the last minute) then I agree with you.
Had the FBI actually allowed murder and mayhem to proceed they'd have been charged with those crimes themselves.
On June 29, 2011, Cromitie, Onta Williams and David Williams were each sentenced to 25 years in prison for their parts in the attempted attack by Manhattan Federal JudgeColleen McMahon, who criticized both the defendants, as well as what she viewed as the government's overzealous handling of the investigation. Referring to Cromitie, she said, "The essence of what occurred here is that a government, understandably zealous to protect its citizens from terrorism, came upon a man both bigoted and suggestible, one who was incapable of committing an act of terrorism on his own. It created acts of terrorism out of his fantasies of bravado and bigotry, and then made those fantasies come true." She added "the government did not have to infiltrate and foil some nefarious plot – there was no nefarious plot to foil." She said the defendants were "not political or religious martyrs," but "thugs for hire, pure and simple."
I agree it's a crucial difference that these acts were not actually committed while 9/11 was.
To the contrary, I feel very safe in the US. The events that unfolded on 9/11 took the nation by surprise and those who worked in our nations security and defense. Sure we failed, and failed miserably, but how many attempts on our nation have been stopped or detered. I'm betting no one knows the answer to that, and we can't believe 9/11 or the WTC bombings were the only attempts on our nation from outside terrorist groups. We also see terrorism occur in much higher accomplished acts world wide in areas where government doesn't offer good security, not including Israel.
While more terrorist attacks are being recorded, the number of fatalities has declined by 25% from its peak in 2007
- Since the start of the Iraq invasion the number of global terrorist incidents has increased fourfold;
- Only 31 of the 158 countries ranked have not experienced a terrorist attack since 2001;
- North America is the least likely region to suffer from terrorism;
- Western Europeans are nineteen times more likely to be killed in a terrorist attack than North Americans;
- Since 2002, only 6% of all fatalities have been terrorists, highlighting the effectiveness of terrorism;
- In 2011, Iraq was the country most impacted from terrorism, followed by Pakistan and Afghanistan.
There have been at least 60 that are publicly known . They count the Boston Bombing as 59.
Abstract
The Heritage Foundation has tracked post-9/11 terrorist plots against the United States in an effort to study the evolving nature of the threat and to garner lessons learned. The best way to protect the United States from terrorism is to ensure a strong and capable domestic counterterrorism enterprise—and to understand the continuing nature of the terror threat. The Boston Marathon bombing was the 59th publicly known terror plot against the United States since 9/11. In a political environment of sequestration on the one hand, and privacy concerns on the other, there are those on both sides of the aisle who want to cut counterterrorism spending and restrict the scope of U.S. intelligence agencies. But the long war on terrorism is far from over. Most disturbingly, an increasing number of Islamist-inspired terrorist attacks are originating within America’s borders. The rise of homegrown extremism is the next front in the fight against terrorism, and Congress and the Administration must take it seriously. This Special Report features up-to-date information on all 60 plots, and the authors describe a plan for a comprehensive homeland security strategy.
While four plots were successful, and three foiled merely by luck or the swift action of private citizens, the rest were thwarted in their early stages by U.S., and sometimes international, law enforcement
Can you prove this or show examples of this claim?
The US does have a policy in place to shoot down commercial jets if it threatens our nation's security. Prior to 9/11 on the US President had the authorization to give such an order, but post 9/11 I believe there are a different set of protocals for such an action, given what happened on 9/11. NOAA just intercepted a flight a few days ago and escorted the commercial liner back to Canada because of a hostile passenger, but believe you me if that person took over the plane and had intentions of running it into a bldg or government bldg it would've been shot out of the sky.
@Soulfly mentioned 60 foiled attacks above, but do you honestly think our government discloses every single threat made against our nation, or how they determined the threat and how they stopped the threat. In doing so it would give terrorist and other nations wishing to do us harm an inside look into how our intelligence apparatus works. There's only one person who knows all of this and that's the President. Otherwise its a need to know, and civilians don't need to know. It doesn't help our society and would only make our nation more of a police state.
The relevance is pretty limited. Some law agencies can and do conduct contrived operations in order to encourage criminal behavior.
