Conspiracy Theories about Quazi Mohammad Rezwanul Ahsan Nafis Fed Sting

[Mick West]

Quazi Mohammad Rezwanul Ahsan Nafis, a 21 year old Bangladeshi was arrested as part of an FBI sting, where agents posed as Al Qaida agents, and supplied him with what he though was a bomb that he could use to blow up the Federal Reserve.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...an-in-New-York-Federal-Reserve-bomb-plot.html

Quazi Mohammad Rezwanul Ahsan Nafis, 21, parked a van full of what he thought were explosives outside the Federal Reserve Bank in downtown Manhattan on Wednesday morning before recording a martyrdom video and then attempting to detonate the 'bomb', according to an FBI charge sheet.


But he was arrested by undercover FBI agents whom he had plotted the attack with via Facebook believing they were al-Qaeda leaders.

Similar FBI operations have happened before. Young men with the intent of performing some terrorist act are caught up by FBU undercover agents, and supplied what they think are the means to do so, and then arrested when they try to go through with the operation.

Conspiracy theorists have suggested that these operations actually expose the lack of any real terrorism in the world. They claim it's all a scam, that terrorist (including 9/11) has been entirely invented by the global elite as a method of instilling fear in the general population to keep them under control.

Prison Planet leap right on this one:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/fbi-entraps-witless-patsy-in-federal-reserve-bombing-plot.html

FBI Entraps Witless Patsy in Federal Reserve Bombing Plot
[...]
A report by Mother Jones and the Investigative Reporting Program at the University of California-Berkley released in 2011 revealed that it is now common practice for the FBI to create terror plots from scratch and entrap witless and even mentally ill patsies.

"The report reveals that the FBI regularly infiltrates communities where they suspect terrorist-minded individuals to be engaging with others. Regardless of their intentions, agents are sent in to converse within the community, find suspects that could potentially carry out 'lone wolf' attacks and then, more or less, encourage them to do so. By providing weaponry, funds and a plan, FBI-directed agents will encourage otherwise-unwilling participants to plot out terrorist attacks, only to bust them before any events fully materialize," RT reported last August.
The contrived plot will undoubtedly allow the Federal Reserve to make the argument it is now a terrorist target. In recent years, the privately owned banking cartel has come under increasing criticism for its manipulation of the money supply and its penchant for secrecy.

The above story is hastily put together, I expect them to dig in and start point out problem over the next few days.

Even the New York Times has noticed there's a lot of this going on:

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2012/04/29/opinion/sunday/terrorist-plots-helped-along-by-the-fbi.xml

THE United States has been narrowly saved from lethal terrorist plots in recent years - or so it has seemed. A would-be suicide bomber was intercepted on his way to the Capitol; a scheme to bomb synagogues and shoot Stinger missiles at military aircraft was developed by men in Newburgh, N.Y.; and a fanciful idea to fly explosive-laden model planes into the Pentagon and the Capitol was hatched in Massachusetts.

But all these dramas were facilitated by the F.B.I., whose undercover agents and informers posed as terrorists offering a dummy missile, fake C-4 explosives, a disarmed suicide vest and rudimentary training. Suspects naïvely played their parts until they were arrested.

When an Oregon college student, Mohamed Osman Mohamud, thought of using a car bomb to attack a festive Christmas-tree lighting ceremony in Portland, the F.B.I. provided a van loaded with six 55-gallon drums of "inert material," harmless blasting caps, a detonator cord and a gallon of diesel fuel to make the van smell flammable. An undercover F.B.I. agent even did the driving, with Mr. Mohamud in the passenger seat. To trigger the bomb the student punched a number into a cellphone and got no boom, only a bust.

This is legal, but is it legitimate? Without the F.B.I., would the culprits commit violence on their own? Is cultivating potential terrorists the best use of the manpower designed to find the real ones? Judging by their official answers, the F.B.I. and the Justice Department are sure of themselves - too sure, perhaps.

It will be interesting see how this unfolds - both to see if the FBI gets any mainstream flack for its reliance on sting operations, and to see if the conspiracy theory gets any traction.

 

[Unregistered]

It makes sense to me. It must be pretty easy to talk some lone retard into doing something like that. Seems very strange that the only cases are instigated and facilitated by FBI/CIA. It must surely be regarded as strange that 'real' attacks are not prolific. They do it all the time in the middle east etc, (real ones). There are millions of illegal immigrants in U.S and Europe. Thankfully you are far more likely to be killed by some thug or crazy than any Jihadist. The question really hangs there like some huge elephant; 'why are there no terrorist attacks.

It is crazy; during the Iraq war, 12 Iraqi's entered the U.K in the back of a lorry from Netherlands. They evaded thermal imaging devices to get in. As soon as they arrived they jumped out and claimed political asylum. Immigration didn't know what to do with them so telephoned London for instruction. They were told, "Give them £200 each and tell them to get a train to Croydon, South London, where they will be assessed.

I mean, can you imagine during WW2, 12 Germans arriving and then being told, "get a train to London and we will take it from there"

The U.K Gov know full well there are around a million illegal immigrants that they cannot track down, even to the point where an amnesty is proposed. If it is that easy to get in and remain undetected it is amazing that even a small percent have not attacked. I would love to hear a counter argument so I can at least try to make sense of it myself.

 

[Jay Reynolds]

It makes sense to me. It must be pretty easy to talk some lone retard into doing something like that. Seems very strange that the only cases are instigated and facilitated by FBI/CIA. It must surely be regarded as strange that 'real' attacks are not prolific. They do it all the time in the middle east etc, (real ones).

It is probably as easy for mullas to recruit people into becoming a 'martyr' in the ME as it is for the FBI to facilitate one who comes here with the intention to create terror. There is a much larger pool of retards for the mullahs to draw from in the ME, and they have public freedom and even community approval to do so there.

Another possibility is that God protects westerners better than Allah does ME's?

 

[MikeC]

The articles I read about this case all state that he decided to carry out an attack, started recruiting for a cell and THEN encountered some FBI undercover agents (presumably in the sort of places the FBI thinks people might go to to do such recruiting) who agreed to be recruited and "let him have his head".

So HE instigated it, decided the nature of the attack, and decided to recruit a cell to help him carry it out "all on his own" - ie before the FBI became involved.

I have no problem with that scenario - assuming it is true. I don't even see it as a "sting"!

If they had come together before planning, suggested he should bomb something, etc., then that is a different story - but this case, on the surface, seems like good law enforcement to me.

 

[Unregistered]

It is probably as easy for mullas to recruit people into becoming a 'martyr' in the ME as it is for the FBI to facilitate one who comes here with the intention to create terror. There is a much larger pool of retards for the mullahs to draw from in the ME, and they have public freedom and even community approval to do so there.

Another possibility is that God protects westerners better than Allah does ME's?

Agree on first bit and that is in fact proven that they do that with promises of virgins and suchlike in the afterlife.

Personally, I think all religion is cult designed to control the masses. Just that larger religions have bigger followings. I would suggest that if by some 'miracle' I am wrong and 'if God exists' 'Allah' is merely another name for that entity. As the Jews were supposed to be the 'Chosen Ones of God' and seeing how they fared I think it safe to say 'God does not protect anyone'.

I think the key element here is that, much as thugs and rioters tend to trash there own neighborhoods, suicide bombers and IED planters tend to blow up their own areas. Is it laziness or stupidity, I don't know.

IED's and suicide bombers have proven impossible to stop in the middle east no matter how tight security is or how oppressive the military are, it simply breeds more martyrs and results in hundreds more IED's and suicide bombers. Naturally these people are angry; they constantly see women and children blown up by U.S drones. Virtually no family is untouched by the horror of it. Should they turn their anger on mainland Europe or U.S, there would be no stopping them. I am surprised that so far they haven't. The mere fact that they haven't, (discounting 9/11, 7/7 and these highly suspicious entrapment scenarios by FBI/CIA/MI6), demonstrates undeniably that they simply are not into attacking outside the M.E It should also be noted that they did not attack Russia when they were the occupiers either. Instead the confined themselves to attacking Russians on their soil, (with the aid of U.S arms, as the U.S was outraged at the occupation and treatment of the people). Hypocrisy?

Obviously the people behind the IED's etc care nothing for the populace and are abhorrent but U.N and U.S policy is no better.
It is pure Empire building by Corporations who are at the same time abusing European and U.S citizens at the same time.

The 'Terror Alert Status' constantly broadcast on U.S tv for years (do they still do it?) following 9/11 was a clear psyop to keep people frightened and easily manageable like sheep. 'Do not question us, you must obey or we cannot protect you'. Hitler and Stalin used the exact same tactic in their reigns of terror.

 

[Mick West]

The 'Terror Alert Status' constantly broadcast on U.S tv for years (do they still do it?) following 9/11 was a clear psyop to keep people frightened and easily manageable like sheep. 'Do not question us, you must obey or we cannot protect you'. Hitler and Stalin used the exact same tactic in their reigns of terror.

Personally I think this was a combination of the generally incompetent response to terrorist (security theater), and possibly an occasional change in the "threat level" where it was not really justified. I really don't think it keeps people frightened - they just ignore it.

 

[Unregistered]

Lol, you got me started on this MK Ultra, now it just gets worse

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/sociopol_bushimpeachment34.htm

On July 13, the New York Times ran a story about the CIA running an assassination squad using U.S military special forces against foreign terrorists without Congressional approval on the orders of former Vice President Dick Cheney.

The Times story confirms claims by Seymour Hersh in March 2009 that an assassination squad had been created that reported directly to Cheney using special forces personnel.

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/06/cia/

Enrique "Ricky" Prado's resume reads like the ultimate CIA officer: veteran of the Central American wars, running the CIA's operations in Korea, a top spy in America's espionage programs against China, and deputy to counter-terrorist chief Cofer Black — and then a stint at Blackwater. But he's also alleged to have started out a career as a hitman for a notorious Miami mobster, and kept working for the mob even after joining the CIA. Finally, he went on to serve as the head of the CIA's secret assassination squad against Al-Qaida.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/15/AR2009071503856.html

The plan to kill top al-Qaeda leaders, which had been on the agency's back burner for much of the past eight years, was suddenly thrust into the spotlight because of proposals to initiate what one intelligence official called a "somewhat more operational phase." Shortly after learning of the plan, Panetta terminated the program and then went to Capitol Hill to brief lawmakers, who had been kept in the dark since 2001.

The Obama administration's top intelligence official, Director of National Intelligence Dennis C. Blair, yesterday defended Panetta's decision to cancel the program, which he said had raised serious questions among intelligence officials about its "effectiveness, maturity and the level of control."

But Blair broke with some Democrats in Congress by asserting that the CIA did not violate the law when it failed to inform lawmakers about the secret program until last month. Blair said agency officials may not have been required to notify Congress about the program, though he believes they should have done so.

http://www.whale.to/b/ciaass.html

This 127-page report, classified Secret, was drafted in July 1963 as a comprehensive guide for training interrogators in the art of obtaining intelligence from "resistant sources." KUBARK--a CIA codename for itself--describes the qualifications of a successful interrogator, and reviews the theory of non-coercive and coercive techniques for breaking a prisoner. Some recommendations are very specific. The report recommends, for example, that in choosing an interrogation site "the electric current should be known in advance, so that transformers and other modifying devices will be on hand if needed." Of specific relevance to the current scandal in Iraq is section nine, "The Coercive Counterintelligence Interrogation of Resistant Sources," (pp 82-104). Under the subheading, "Threats and Fears," the CIA authors note that "the threat of coercion usually weakens or destroys resistance more effectively than coercion itself. The threat to inflict pain, for example, can trigger fears more damaging than the immediate sensation of pain." Under the subheading "Pain," the guidelines discuss the theories behind various thresholds of pain, and recommend that a subject's "resistance is likelier to be sapped by pain which he seems to inflict upon himself" such rather than by direct torture. The report suggests forcing the detainee to stand at attention for long periods of time. A section on sensory deprivations suggests imprisoning detainees in rooms without sensory stimuli of any kind, "in a cell which has no light," for example. "An environment still more subject to control, such as water-tank or iron lung, is even more effective," the KUBARK manual concludes.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-151553/CIA-assassins-licence-kill.html

Mr Bush's decision is believed to be the first time a Western democracy has authorised agents to track down and liquidate a list of targets worldwide. Authority was given last year for the CIA to find and kill terrorist leaders in Afghanistan. That has now been extended across the globe.

Even at the height of the Cold War, when American and Soviet agents were in fierce competition in Eastern Europe and the Far East, there was nothing like this.

However, Mr Bush has not abandoned the executive order which bans assassinations. Instead, he has defined Al Qaeda members as 'enemy combatants', which allows the CIA to use lethal force against them.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a-secret-army-of-3000-assassins-2087039.html

The details of the clandestine army have surprised no one in Kabul, the Afghan capital, although the fact that the information is now public is unprecedented. There have been multiple reports of the CIA running its own militias in southern Afghanistan

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april2007/300407deathbedconfession.htm

Monday, April 30, 2007


The "deathbed confession" audio tape in which former CIA agent and Watergate conspirator E. Howard Hunt admits he was approached to be part of a CIA assassination team to kill JFK was aired this weekend - an astounding development that has gone completely ignored by the establishment media.

There is loads more out there ....

 

[Unregistered]

Personally I think this was a combination of the generally incompetent response to terrorist (security theater), and possibly an occasional change in the "threat level" where it was not really justified. I really don't think it keeps people frightened - they just ignore it.

It may not keep you and I frightened but I don't think we were the demographic which was targeted by it. I'm guessing there were many people that were frightened by it, which is ironic because it is doing the terrorists job for them. Also why allow such a mistake to carry on for many years.

Does it still go on now?

Can you offer up legitimate reason for invading Iraq, (resulting in estimated Iraqi deaths since the 2003 invasion to be over 150,000, with about 80% being civilians (that's 120,000 civilians dead, inc women and children, let alone how many crippled)? On top you have the U.N and U.S casualties.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War#Total_Iraqi_casualties

Ditto Afghanistan?

 

[Unregistered]

It may not keep you and I frightened but I don't think we were the demographic which was targeted by it. I'm guessing there were many people that were frightened by it, which is ironic because it is doing the terrorists job for them. Also why allow such a mistake to carry on for many years.

Does it still go on now?

Can you offer up legitimate reason for invading Iraq, (resulting in estimated Iraqi deaths since the 2003 invasion to be over 150,000, with about 80% being civilians (that's 120,000 civilians dead, inc women and children, let alone how many crippled)? On top you have the U.N and U.S casualties.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War#Total_Iraqi_casualties

Ditto Afghanistan?

Very interesting that 'so far', no one has tried to come up with a legitimate reason for invading Iraq/Afghanistan. Also interesting that no one seems capable of coming up with a rational explanation as to why there is such a lack of terrorist attacks in America and U.K.

Also seems strange to my mind why the Defense Department currently classifies the Fort Hood shootings as an act of workplace violence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Hood_shooting

Also, any ideas on why 'Police' tanks are on U.S soil as 'anti terrorist' precautions?

This link 'offers an explanation' lol if it wasn't so excessive by a light year.

http://news.yahoo.com/police-tank-spurs-wild-speculation-occupy-tampa-rally-165800157.html

Then you have: "It's not quite a tank. But the quaint town of 23,000 -- scene of just two murders since 1999 -- had just accepted a $285,933 grant from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to purchase a Bearcat, an eight-ton armored personnel vehicle made by Lenco Industries Inc. "

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/16/police-tank-purchase-new-hampshire_n_1279983.html

Since the Sept. 11 attacks, the war on terror has accelerated the trend toward militarization. Homeland Security hands out anti-terrorism grants to cities and towns, many specifically to buy military-grade equipment from companies like Lenco. In December, the Center for Investigative Reporting reported that Homeland Security grants totalled $34 billion, and went to such unlikely terrorism targets as Fargo, N.D.; Fon du Lac, Wisc.; and Canyon County, Idaho. The report noted that because of the grants, defense contractors that long served the Pentagon exclusively have increasingly turned looked to police departments, hoping to tap a "homeland security market" expected to reach $19 billion by 2014.

Until only recently, public and press reaction to these grants and the gear purchased with them has been positive or non-existent. Most towns obtain and use the grants without much discussion or news coverage. At most, the local paper might run a supportive story touting the police department's new acquisition, usually without controversy. But it has been different in Keene, in part because Clark and a group of libertarian activists have made the Bearcat an issue.

Jim Massery, the government sales manager for Pittsfield, Mass.-based Lenco, dismissed critics who wonder why a town with almost no crime would need a $300,000 armored truck. "I don't think there's any place in the country where you can say, 'That isn't a likely terrorist target,'" Massery said. "How would you know? We don' t know what the terrorists are thinking. No one predicted that terrorists would take over airplanes on Sept. 11. If a group of terrorists decide to shoot up a shopping mall in a town like Keene, wouldn't you rather be prepared?"

Massery said Keene's anti-Bearcat citizens deliberately mischaracterize how the vehicle would be used, and pointed to incidents he said have saved police officers' lives. "When you see some Palestinian terrorist causing problems in Jerusalem, what do you usually see next? You see a tank with a cannon show up outside the guy's house, and the tank blows the house to smithereens. When a Lenco Bearcat shows up at a crime scene where a suicidal killer is holding hostages, it doesn't show up with a cannon. It shows up with a negotiator. Our trucks save lives. They save police lives. And I can't help but think that the people who are trying to stop this just don't think police officers' lives are worth saving."

Keene residents opposed to the Bearcat point to a video Lenco uses to market the vehicle to police departments. (See below.) The video doesn't stress negotiation, but shows the vehicle being used aggressively. The video viewpoint is similar to that of a shooter role-playing game, set to the AC/DC song "Thunderstruck." Cops dressed in camouflage tote assault weapons, pile in and out of the vehicle, and take aim at targets from around and behind the vehicle. They attach a battering ram to the front of the vehicle, break through the front door of a house, then inject tear gas. The Keene city council barred Clark from showing the video at the February committee meeting, and LENCO has since removed the video from publicly-accessible pages of its website.

"That video is totally irrelevant," Massery said. "We used some Hollywood effects and slick marketing to promote our product. So what?"

Neither Keene Mayor Kendall Lane nor police Chief Kenneth Meola returned HuffPost's requests for comment.

Many towns have purchased vehicles like the Bearcat, or obtained tanks or armored vehicles from the Pentagon, saying they need to be prepared for terror attacks or school shootings. When the University of North Carolina-Charlotte recently formed a SWAT team, for example, a police spokesman told the campus newspaper that the paramilitary gear and tactics were necessary to prevent another Columbine or Virginia Tech. Despite the heavy media coverage of campus shootings, they're extremely rare. University of Virginia Professor Dewey Cornell, who studies violence prevention and school safety, has estimated that a typical school campus can expect to see a homicide about once every 12,000 years. So, since terror attacks and school shootings are rare, police agencies tend to use their armored vehicles for more mundane police work, like serving drug warrants.

"All we do is make trucks," Massery said. "How the trucks are used after the police department gets them isn't something we can control. You'll have to ask the police department or city council and Keene about that."

Much of the opposition to the Bearcat in Keene has come from Free Keene, media-savvy libertarians who moved to the town in recent years as part of the Free State Project, a coordinated campaign in which enough like-minded people move to a small state like New Hampshire to change policy and create a libertarian government. Free Staters have clashed with Keene police on several occasions since their arrival, including incidents in which activists were arrested or threatened for recording on-duty cops with cell phones and video cameras. (It is legal to record on-duty cops in New Hampshire).

Free Keene is a particularly active branch of the Free State movement. The group has staged acts of civil disobedience, ranging from the generally sympathetic (recording on-duty cops) to antics more likely to inspire eye-rolls and criticism from the town's longtime residents, including "Topless Tuesdays" and smoke-in sessions in the town square, just across from City Hall and a local middle school.

"These people are crazy," Massery said. "They hate cops. They hate the government. They remind me of the Jehovah's Witnesses who take on the Red Cross. Why is anyone listening to them?"

But Clark, the Keene resident who started the petitions, isn't a Free Stater. And while some of Free Keene's antics have rubbed longtime Keenians the wrong way, the Bearcat seems to have united many old-timers and their newer neighbors. "This is a big topic in this small town, and I haven't met a single person who in favor" of the Bearcat, said Dorrie O'Meara, who moved to Keene 13 years ago. O'Meara owns real estate and several businesses around Keene, including a laundromat, an apartment complex, and Pedraza's Mexican restaurant. "Keene is a beautiful place. It's gorgeous, and it's safe, and we love it here. We just don't want to live in the kind of place where there's an armored personnel carrier parked outside of City Hall. I mean, it's completely unnecessary. But it's more than that. It's just not who we are."

Some city council members have said that because the vehicle will be paid for by a federal grant, the town would be foolish not to take it. O'Meara doesn't buy it. "They try to say it's 'free.' Well it isn't free. Taxpayers are still paying to put this militaristic thing in our town. And it isn't about the money, anyway. It's about what kind of town we want to be."

The Keene city council will take up the issue again next month. Massery predicted opposition from Keene residents will ultimately be in vain. "We have Bearcats in 90 percent of the 100 or so largest cities in America," Massery said. "This is going to happen. It has already happened. To resist now would be like saying police officers should scrap the Glock and go back to the revolver. It's a fantasy."

Land of the free? I mean really, is anyone on here happy to have these tanks running around?

 

[Unregistered]

Oh I must have got it wrong.... "I can honestly say that the BearCat saved the suspect's life," Current said

So it was a really good investment of $300,000 to supply the police with an armored truck as it prevented this guy from committing suicide. Wonder how they would have coped before.

Perhaps we will be seeing the police patrolling in them routinely as they obviously all need to be protected as it is not fair that some are left exposed in police cars or on foot. I wonder how many extra police could have been employed with that money and nationally by using the Homeland Security grants totalled $34 billion. No, lets have a tank!

It will make interesting viewing on tv though, no doubt people are bored only seeing 30 or so police turn up to kick down the door of a 15 year old kid with some marijuana under his bed.

"since terror attacks and school shootings are rare, police agencies tend to use their armored vehicles for more mundane police work, like serving drug warrants."

http://www.krqe.com/dpp/news/crime/deputies-armored-vehicle-saves-lives

 

[Unregistered]

My favourite quote in response to video of the vehicle being used aggressively. The video viewpoint is similar to that of a shooter role-playing game, set to the AC/DC song "Thunderstruck." Cops dressed in camouflage tote assault weapons, pile in and out of the vehicle, and take aim at targets from around and behind the vehicle. They attach a battering ram to the front of the vehicle, break through the front door of a house, then inject tear gas was

"That video is totally irrelevant," Massery said. "We used some Hollywood effects and slick marketing to promote our product. So what?

 

[Gunguy45]

And car companies show their vehicles sliding around corners with smoking tires or SUVs plowing through mud bogs at 60MPH. Why don't they show soccer moms driving to school and back or trophy wives cruising to the hair salon? Because it's about marketing!

Can those vehicles do the things in the commercials...probably....how often do they do it in real life...almost never.

Our small town...close to the size of that mentioned...also has an armored vehicle...it was purchased from a much larger department at a huge discount. It's been used 2 or 3 times in the last 5 yrs AFAIK. It costs almost nothing to operate.

Do I think the grants are a bunch of BS....yes...for the majority. Do I think the money could be spent for improved communications and protective gear for sworn officers...absolutely. Ask the grunts on the street in small towns what they want.

Bigger cities use the vehicles quite often.....for major drug busts and high danger situations.

 

[MikeC]

Oh yippee...another "unregistered" Gish Gallop of every thing that is wrong with something somehow proving that a completely unrelated thing is a conspiracy!!

honestly Mick I think you should ban unregistered posts altogether with the amount of this going on now!

 

[Mick West]

Oh yippee...andother "unregistered" Gish Galopof every thing that is wrong with something somehow proving tha a completely unrelated thing is a conspiracy!!

honestly Mick I think you should ban unregistered posts altogether with the amount of this going on now!

Maybe, but I like give people the benefit of the doubt. I am getting a little tired of the "LOOK AT THIS HUGE LONG LIST OF THINGS I SUSPECT I MIGHT FIND SUSPICIOUS!!!!!" school of argument though.

 

[Unregistered]

Maybe, but I like give people the benefit of the doubt. I am getting a little tired of the "LOOK AT THIS HUGE LONG LIST OF THINGS I SUSPECT I MIGHT FIND SUSPICIOUS!!!!!" school of argument though.

Part of the original argument set out was: "Conspiracy theorists have suggested that these operations actually expose the lack of any real terrorism in the world. They claim it's all a scam, that terrorist (including 9/11) has been entirely invented by the global elite as a method of instilling fear in the general population to keep them under control."

Obviously there was an error in this statement because clearly terrorism is rife in the 'world' (more so or less so since 9/11 is debatable). Clearly, the writer intended to say, America/Europe or something. I would also take issue with the assertion that it was 'all'/"entirely" a scam and settle with 'largely' or 'mainly' a scam invented by the global elite as a method of instilling fear in the general population to keep them under control.

All I have done is elaborate on that argument. The purchase of $billions on arming the U.S police in a military fashion, inc tanks, armoured personnel carriers etc under the pretext of 'controlling terrorism' is perfectly legitimate to bring up in this context on this thread as it clearly supports the above argument unless you care to argue that the 'militarization of U.S police 'makes people feel safer'.

"Many towns have purchased vehicles like the Bearcat, or obtained tanks or armored vehicles from the Pentagon, saying they need to be prepared for terror attacks or school shootings."

So what exactly is the problem? Is it because I am unregistered or because you don't like what I said.

Mike C acts true to form when confronted by things which he would like to ignore and squeals. 'Ban them Mick, ban them all', so it would appear to be the latter and I suggest the chances of Mike C saying 'ban them all', if I/they were saying "Oh Mike C, your so wise and insightful, I agree completely', must lay in the probability range of 0%.

How many have you actually exhorted to be banned Mike C? Whatever happened to freedom of speech? I am surprised you don't just confine yourself to your bedroom and hold discussions with yourself. It is patently childlike... 'You can't play in my garden cos you disagree with me'.

I say this Mike C, not as some vilification but as someone who suggests to you that 'others are entitled to their views as well.

I also asked who supports this policy and so far Gunguy is the only one to openly support it but even he appears to recognise the funds would be better spent elsewhere.

Is this really the type of society that you endorse/want/feel necessary?

Is this not likely to be music to the ears of any U.S enemy?

Does this reaction not signify that 'terrorism works'?

I am seriously trying to ascertain whether this is something the majority of American people actually want?

It is also highly relevant to the thread that the Fort Hood shootings are classified as an act of 'workplace violence' rather than terrorism. It is a reasonable question to ask why this classification should be given when:

"The attack was described by a Senate report as "the worst terrorist attack on U.S. soil since September 11, 2001."[7][8] General Jack Keane testified before a Senate committee that his first reaction was "...just how unacceptable the military's failure to deal properly with Major Hasan's radicalization to violent Islamist extremism was." He also agreed with "...the report's conclusion that Hasan's open displays of violent Islamist extremism was (sic) a violation of military rules calling for good order and discipline." He listed what he believed to be "...some of the obvious signs that Hasan should have been discharged"

No disrespect to the victims and their families but one has to cynically ask, in view of the rationale for tank deployment, perhaps if they had more tanks/bearcats on site, this may not have happened.

No, I don't really think that would have made any difference would it?

Well lets examine further, Would a tank have helped at Columbine or the Batman shootings... I think not. Ah, I know, Police helicopter gunships for quick response, awesome intimidation and massive firepower, wow, this could mean the end of all crime in the U.S!

Just a thought!

Perhaps the question about who supports the Iraq/Afghanistan invasion was 'a bit off topic', but I thought we were all adults here and sharing our thoughts about the likelihood of 'prospective terrorist attacks' and the Iraq/Afghanistan invasion seems relevant to that discussion; i.e. does it make it more or less likely?

Still, I understand and respect peoples decision not to own up as to whether they support it or not.

Personally, I see no link to terrorism being justification for the invasions, but that's just me, or is it?

 

[Unregistered]

I would just like to say "thank you Mick" for posting my response above

 

[Mick West]

You're welcome. However you might want to contemplate the meaning of this note in a letter by Blaise Pascal:

"Mes Révérends Pères, mes lettres n'avaient pas accoutumé de se suivre de si près, ni d'être si étendues. Le peu de temps que j'ai eu a été cause de l'un et de l'autre. Je n'ai fait celle-ci plus longue que parce que je n'ai pas eu le loisir de la faire plus courte."

"Reverend Fathers, my letters do not customarily follow one another so closely, nor are they usually so ponderous. The little time I have had has caused both the one and the other. I have made this one longer only because I have not had the leisure of making it shorter."

Also consider the popular internet commentary:

TL;DR

 

[SR1419]

Very interesting that 'so far', no one has tried to come up with a legitimate reason for invading Iraq/Afghanistan. Also interesting that no one seems capable of coming up with a rational explanation as to why there is such a lack of terrorist attacks in America and U.K.

The impetus for invading Afghanistan - going after OBL and dethroning the Taliban- was/is legitimate in my belief...

Iraq? not so much...

It is possible that the lack of attacks in the US/UK could be because they are too busy fighting for their lives and running from CIA militias...and find it easier to attack targets closer to home and/or with less security. There have been numerous attacks by suicide bombers etc on US and UK citizens since 9/11:

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001454.html

That being said- there have been attempts/attacks- even without the prompting/facilitation of the FBI on US/UK soil-

Most notably the London train bombings:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_July_2005_London_bombings

The "Shoe Bomber":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Reid

The infamous "UnderWear Bomber" :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umar_Farouk_Abdulmutallab

The failed attempt in Times Square:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Times_Square_car_bombing_attempt

 

[MikeC]

The impetus for invading Afghanistan - going after OBL and dethroning the Taliban- was/is legitimate in my belief...

Even Iran thought so and offered to help!!

Iraq? not so much...

Yeah that one the thinking is either still hidden, or if the neo-cons REALLY did believe all the BS they spouted about WMD, links to AQ, etc., it shows a signal lack of reality in the halls of power at the time.

It is possible that the lack of attacks in the US/UK could be because they are too busy fighting for their lives and running from CIA militias...and find it easier to attack targets closer to home and/or with less security. There have been numerous attacks by suicide bombers etc on US and UK citizens since 9/11:

Personally I think they found it a lot easier to kill westerners in Iraq and Afghanistan so there was no need to try do do so "at home" nearly as much.

Insofar as Europe has a higher population of moslems than hte US and therefore has more extremists, some activity was still easier to co-ordinate there too.

But with most cells being caught by increased security & intelligence, or self destructing, and the subsequent "bad press" for religious extrremism hopefuly driving down the number of recruits.

Meanwhile back home it remains a lot easier to find and recruit barely educated young people who have no world view except islam good/west bad and get them to commit various crimes.

And if westerners are now rarer in Iraq well heck there's still various others who deserve to die - Sunnis, Shi'ites, Kurds, Assyrians, christians, govt oficials & plices, etc...

All just IMO of course

 

[MikeC]

Mike C acts true to form when confronted by things which he would like to ignore and squeals. 'Ban them Mick, ban them all',

no, I did not.

so it would appear to be the latter and I suggest the chances of Mike C saying 'ban them all', if I/they were saying "Oh Mike C, your so wise and insightful, I agree completely', must lay in the probability range of 0%.

How many have you actually exhorted to be banned Mike C?

none. Ever.

Whatever happened to freedom of speech? I am surprised you don't just confine yourself to your bedroom and hold discussions with yourself. It is patently childlike... 'You can't play in my garden cos you disagree with me'.

you say I said you should be banned when I did not, and then complain that my post was childish??

What I said was that I believe that unregisterd posting should not be allowed.

This does not ban you - IT FORCES YOU TO REGISTER TO POST.

I am not surprised you have come out with this whiney complaint about being banned - actually dealing with facts is not your strong suite.

I say this Mike C, not as some vilification but as someone who suggests to you that 'others are entitled to their views as well.

And I say this to whichever "unregistered" you are - stop making up lies.

I also asked who supports this policy and so far Gunguy is the only one to openly support it but even he appears to recognise the funds would be better spent elsewhere.

Is this really the type of society that you endorse/want/feel necessary?

Is this not likely to be music to the ears of any U.S enemy?

Does this reaction not signify that 'terrorism works'?

What a load of rubbish - this is a private bulletin board, and Mick is perfectly free to make whatever conditions he likes in reggard of posting here.

You do NOT have free speech here, and neither do I for that matter.

I am seriously trying to ascertain whether this is something the majority of American people actually want?

Really? You think "the American people" should have a vote on how Mick runs his forum??

Actualy the American people, through their Government, have said how Mick can run this forum - and it is any way he likes.

 

[Unregistered]

no, I did not.



none. Ever.



you say I said you should be banned when I did not, and then complain that my post was childish??

What I said was that I believe that unregisterd posting should not be allowed.

This does not ban you - IT FORCES YOU TO REGISTER TO POST.

I am not surprised you have come out with this whiney complaint about being banned - actually dealing with facts is not your strong suite.



And I say this to whichever "unregistered" you are - stop making up lies.



What a load of rubbish - this is a private bulletin board, and Mick is perfectly free to make whatever conditions he likes in reggard of posting here.

You do NOT have free speech here, and neither do I for that matter.



Really? You think "the American people" should have a vote on how Mick runs his forum??

Actualy the American people, through their Government, have said how Mick can run this forum - and it is any way he likes.

Dear Mike C

This post says much about the way you think. This bulletin board is not 'private'. It is open to anyone which is why anyone can read and post here. There is no login process to read and the only restriction on posting is by satisfying Mike's (unspecified at outset), by from usage appears to be 'normal politeness rules'.

This is a section on 'all things conspiratorial' so it is not going to be about 'usual stuff'.

The simple fact is, without all the unregistered contributors this site would have very little debate and would consist mainly of the 'usual crowd' tut tutting about the terrible things on the net and patting themselves on the back for being so much more illuminated than the rabble.

I can see you have difficulty grasping some of the concepts put forward and it obviously troubles you. That is the same on the other side of the coin as well, which is why so many people see conspiracy theories.

This site could play a very good role in debunking stuff, which is obviously its aim, but I believe it falls down by trying to be too 'dry', by not addressing/exploring all the aspects. What I mean is 'the sum is greater than the parts' and to criticise people who attempt to put things in context, i.e.looking at the bigger picture, as well as the small picture, I feel is unhelpful to the cause of conspiracy theories.

It is a very technical world and much of humankind is having trouble keeping up. This site could be a good resource for people to 'get a different point of view' and I mean both ways! But trust is hard won on both sides.

You have misunderstood what I was saying here:

'I also asked who supports this policy and so far Gunguy is the only one to openly support it but even he appears to recognise the funds would be better spent elsewhere.
Is this really the type of society that you endorse/want/feel necessary?
Is this not likely to be music to the ears of any U.S enemy?
Does this reaction not signify that 'terrorism works'?
I am seriously trying to ascertain whether this is something the majority of American people actually want? '

This is to do with the militarization of the U.S police, not to do with the running of this website.

If I started seeing tanks where I live, I would be extremely worried and angry as to what was going on but I believe it should not be just a question of 'I'm alright Jack', I am concerned for others who are enduring this as well and I would like to know what those people feel about it, whether they want it or if they are just accepting it because they feel powerless to stop it.

Anyway, Peace Mike C

 

[Unregistered]

The impetus for invading Afghanistan - going after OBL and dethroning the Taliban- was/is legitimate in my belief...

Iraq? not so much...

Ok, would you care to investigate this view further?

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(2001–present)#Legal_basis_for_war

Legal basis for war

The United Nations Charter, to which all the Coalition countries are signatories, provides that all UN member states must settle their international disputes peacefully and no member nation can use military force except in self-defense. The United States Constitution states that international treaties, such as the United Nations Charter, that are ratified by the U.S. are part of the law of the land in the U.S., though subject to effective repeal by any subsequent act of Congress (i.e., the "leges posteriores priores contrarias abrogant" or "last in time" canon of statutory interpretation).[70] The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) did not authorize the U.S.-led military campaign in Afghanistan (Operation Enduring Freedom).

Defenders of the legitimacy of the U.S.-led invasion argue that U.N. Security Council authorization was not required since the invasion was an act of collective self-defense provided for under Article 51 of the UN Charter, and therefore was not a war of aggression.[70][71] Critics maintain that the bombing and invasion of Afghanistan were not legitimate self-defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter because the 9/11 attacks were not "armed attacks" by another state, but rather were perpetrated by groups of individuals or non-state actors, and that these attackers had no proven connection to Afghanistan. Further, it is their opinion that even if a state had perpetrated the 9/11 attacks, no bombing campaign would constitute self-defense; the necessity for self-defense must be "instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation."[72]

President George W. Bush was authorized by Congress on 14 September 2001, by legislation titled Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists which was passed and signed on 18 September 2001, by both President Bush and congress. This legislation authorized the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the attacks on 11 September 2001. The authorization granted the President the authority to use all "necessary and appropriate force" against those whom he determined "planned, authorized, committed or aided" the 11 September attacks, or who harbored said persons or groups. The Bush administration, for its part, did not seek a declaration of war by the U.S. Senate, and labeled Taliban troops as supporters of terrorists rather than soldiers, denying them the protections of the Geneva Convention and due process of law. This position was successfully challenged in the U.S. Supreme Court[73] and questioned even by military lawyers responsible for prosecuting affected prisoners.[74] On 20 December 2001, more than two months after the U.S.-led attack began, the UNSC authorized the creation of an International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) to take all measures necessary to fulfill its mandate of assisting the Afghan Interim Authority in maintaining security.[75] Command of the ISAF passed to NATO on 11 August 2003.[76]
2001: Initial attack
Further information: 2001 in Afghanistan

On 20 September 2001, U.S. president George W. Bush addressed the United States Congress and demanded that the Taliban deliver Osama bin Laden and destroy bases of al Qaeda.[77] On 5 October 2001, the Taliban offered to try Bin Laden in an Afghan court, so long as the United States provided what it called "solid evidence" of his guilt, but the U.S. would not hand over its evidence to the Taliban.[78] So on 7 October 2001, the U.S. government launched military operations in Afghanistan. Teams from the CIA's Special Activities Division (SAD) were the first U.S. forces to enter Afghanistan and begin combat operations. They were soon joined by U.S. Army Special Forces from the 5th Special Forces Group and other units from USSOCOM.[79][80][81]

On 7 October 2001, airstrikes were reported in the capital, Kabul (where electricity supplies were severed), at the airport, at Kandahar (home of the Taliban's Supreme Leader Mullah Omar), and in the city of Jalalabad. CNN released exclusive footage of Kabul being bombed to all the American broadcasters at approximately 5:08 pm October 7, 2001

Do you support the action on the above basis?

Very many people feel this is not sufficient reason to base an all out war on a Country and its people

Further,would you accept the speed with which all this took place, gives credence to an argument that this had a significant degree of pre planning, taking into account the massive logistics involved?

Are you concerned that 'diplomatic/legal options were merely cursorarily observed and by no reasonable measure adequately explored?

Does it concern you that " the Taliban, (being the legitimate Government at the time), offered to try Bin Laden in an Afghan court, so long as the United States provided what it called "solid evidence" of his guilt, but the U.S. would not hand over its evidence to the Taliban", and may this fact be legitimitely be construed 'there was no solid evidence' and certainly that there was no meaningful attempt to reach diplomatic/legal settlement.

 

[MikeC]

Dear Mike C

This post says much about the way you think. This bulletin board is not 'private'. It is open to anyone which is why anyone can read and post here. There is no login process to read and the only restriction on posting is by satisfying Mike's (unspecified at outset), by from usage appears to be 'normal politeness rules'.

Those are all choices Mick has made - it is private in that it is his "property" - he is free to make whatever conditions he chooses to, and we are posting here by his grace and favour.

thisis hte case for every Frum owned by a private person pertty much everywhere in the world AFAIK.

The simple fact is, without all the unregistered contributors this site would have very little debate and would consist mainly of the 'usual crowd' tut tutting about the terrible things on the net and patting themselves on the back for being so much more illuminated than the rabble.

It is not difficult to login, as a few people have managed to do so recently and given us interesting topics for discussion.

I can see you have difficulty grasping some of the concepts put forward and it obviously troubles you.

with such a powerfuil tele-psychoanalytic ability I am surprised you aer not making a fortune doing readings over the 'net!!

This site could play a very good role in debunking stuff, which is obviously its aim, but I believe it falls down by trying to be too 'dry', by not addressing/exploring all the aspects. What I mean is 'the sum is greater than the parts' and to criticise people who attempt to put things in context, i.e.looking at the bigger picture, as well as the small picture, I feel is unhelpful to the cause of conspiracy theories.

such attempts usually seem to involve people with pet topics trying to tell us that eth actual facts are not as important as the dots they can connect.

It also shows an ignorance of what debunking actually is.

It is a very technical world and much of humankind is having trouble keeping up. This site could be a good resource for people to 'get a different point of view' and I mean both ways! But trust is hard won on both sides.

Debunking is not so much about trust as facts - if you refuse to accept verifiable facts because you do not trust he site you read them on then yuo are perfectly free to go check them elsewhere - that si one of the strengths of good debunking - it is not about what a person thinks - it is about what can actually be shown to be true.

You have misunderstood what I was saying here:

'I also asked who supports this policy and so far Gunguy is the only one to openly support it but even he appears to recognise the funds would be better spent elsewhere.
Is this really the type of society that you endorse/want/feel necessary?
Is this not likely to be music to the ears of any U.S enemy?
Does this reaction not signify that 'terrorism works'?
I am seriously trying to ascertain whether this is something the majority of American people actually want? '

This is to do with the militarization of the U.S police, not to do with the running of this website.

That certainly was not clear to me.

If I started seeing tanks where I live, I would be extremely worried and angry as to what was going on but I believe it should not be just a question of 'I'm alright Jack', I am concerned for others who are enduring this as well and I would like to know what those people feel about it, whether they want it or if they are just accepting it because they feel powerless to stop it.

Police have had access to armoured vehicles for decades - either through the National Guard or other military. SWAT team often have armoured vehicles.

In the case in point there was a clearly demonstrated adbvantage to having such a vehicle on hand in terms of keeping people alive.

What is your definition of "militarisation" in rgard to the Police? Eg are you also against police body armour, automatic weapons, helmets, night vision equipment??

And if you are the same unregistered who made the false allegations about me above, are you going to apologise?

 

[Unregistered]

Those are all choices Mick has made - it is private in that it is his "property" - he is free to make whatever conditions he chooses to, and we are posting here by his grace and favour.

thisis hte case for every Frum owned by a private person pertty much everywhere in the world AFAIK.

If it was 'private', NO ONE could access it without his permission. NOBODY needs his permission to access it therefore it is PUBLIC, (anyone can see it) as is the rest of the web which is not protected by access protocols.

Sorry but your lack of comprehension of the most basic rational arguments appear to be epic. No offense but from now on I will not respond to your posts as it seems I am wasting my time attempting to reason with you.