tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5176006268302183776.post4519145594421442620..comments2024-03-20T10:14:19.071-04:00Comments on The Shipler Report: Terrorist Plots, Hatched by the F.B.I.Davehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00305265860388931637noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5176006268302183776.post-25017269893607917002012-06-05T10:34:41.133-04:002012-06-05T10:34:41.133-04:00"Only" five guns? Well, that's comfo..."Only" five guns? Well, that's comforting. The fact that they had real weapons differentiates them from the defendants who had none at all and depended utterly on the FBI to provide (inoperable) guns or (fake) explosives. James Cromitie, for example, couldn't figure out how to buy a gun in his hometown of Newburg, NY, where "you or I could get a gun in about 3 minutes," his lawyer told me. All cases involving FBI infiltration fall along a spectrum, and reasonable people can disagree about where to locate them, but while the Fort Dix case did turn on informants, I think the record puts it closer to the reality end than any of the 14 others--including a 15th: the recent Occupy Wall Street so-called bridge-bombing case, whose defendants were apparently led by the FBI to move from a relatively innocuous plan to knock down signs to blowing a bridge--which they had neither the explosives expertise nor the equipment to do. I wouldn't argue that the Fort Dix guys had the capacity to pull off their attack either (I write derisively about it in my book The Rights of the People) but to mix that case in with these others is to do a disservice to the argument about the questionable FBI sting operations. I'm sure if I'd done so I'd be getting a lot of comments from the other side accusing me of overreaching and, perhaps gleefully, using it to discredit my characterization of the problem, and thus the entire premise of the piece.Davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00305265860388931637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5176006268302183776.post-44456800791808927612012-06-05T00:52:56.113-04:002012-06-05T00:52:56.113-04:00the commenter is right about Ft Dix; Mr. Shipler i...the commenter is right about Ft Dix; Mr. Shipler is wrong. the "plotters" at Ft. Dix were six pizza-delivery guys who videotaped themselves yelling Allahu Akbar! on vacation at a shooting range; they went to duplicate the image (for souvenirs) at a Best Buy and were turned in by the clerk who took their order. Nearly two years later the FBI, frustrated that their informers found no criminal activity, had the informers themselves offer the six a bargain deal on some weapons, which of course they leaped at (because at the time they only had 5 gus and there were six of them, so one always had to wait for his turn at the range), and then they were busted.<br />In fact, months before, at least one of the six tried to report one informer to the local cops, because he was troubled by the wild "plots" the FBI was trying to get them involved with.<br />It's all in the record...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5176006268302183776.post-13513692293143382012-05-02T11:01:35.766-04:002012-05-02T11:01:35.766-04:00None of these cases fits the category of governmen...None of these cases fits the category of government-inspired. The Fort Dix crew had already formulated their plan, and possessed some weapons, before the FBI informants were infiltrated. The passenger Kurt Haskell was the only person in the waiting area who saw the alleged incident, and Kennedy did not say that the underwear bomber was deliberately allowed into the U.S. He said that as a matter of course, the State Department checks with law enforcement and intelligence agencies before revoking a visa to make sure they're not following the person to see what others he contacts, as part of an investigation to round up a larger conspiracy. That may have been the case with the underwear bomber, but it's not known. As for the Times Square attempt, I'd need to see evidence of government involvement before subscribing to the theory. Just because a bomber is incompetent doesn't mean the government's involved.Davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00305265860388931637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5176006268302183776.post-81583630594210387822012-05-02T08:40:14.983-04:002012-05-02T08:40:14.983-04:00This is so well written, Dave. Makes such a good,...This is so well written, Dave. Makes such a good, important point - Really excellent report. Thank you!Jonellanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5176006268302183776.post-15385175328472654212012-05-01T06:26:56.849-04:002012-05-01T06:26:56.849-04:00I must admit I was a bit surprised reading this fo...I must admit I was a bit surprised reading this for many reasons. First from reading the title was surprised to see it in the New York Times. After reading the white wash that followed that surprise subsided.<br /><br />The article is similar to the troops growing the opium. They couldn't hide the fact anymore so the solution was hide it in plain sight. You start the article as this is what is going on and then go into why it is justifiable and necessary. I assure you it isn't. <br /><br />But this isn't the main disgrace of this article. The last or two paragraphs says 14 out of 22 of the worst terrorist plots foiled were FBI set up. Then you continue to list 4 more that had no government involvement. Out of those 4, two of them I was aware of HAVING government involvement. <br />1. The underwear bomber (the incident used to push through the naked body scanners) Kurt Haskell came out right after saying a sharp dressed man got him on the plane past security without a passport. Then a month later it came out from the under Secretary of State Mr. Kennedy on C span that an unnamed agency got him on the plane. Once again a (deliberately) defective bomb.<br />2. The fort Dix incident had not 1 but 2 FBI informants involved and even provided maps of the place for them.<br /><br />If you are going to report an article I find it helps to at least research it first. I don't see any differences between these 2 and the others you enumerated.<br /><br />And another one you mentioned the Times Square bomber was so ridiculous it isn't even worth mentioning. First he bought the vehicle for the event, why buy a vehicle that is all glass in the back when you can buy a van even cheaper than the pathfinder he bought? His bomb included (in part) m-88 firecrackers and 2 or 3 travel alarm clocks. This was obviously done for show. If you want a bomb to go off you don't need to make it complicated. In fact in a car everything you need is already there. you have a battery you can run a wire right from that, or splice in to the memory wire on the radio or anything else that has power all the time then just have some form of switch in the middle of that wire and you can ground it to anywhere. These individuals according to their wiki page attended bomb making courses. I have never attended a bomb making course and thought of that while reading the wiki page. I believe this was for show and never intended for it to go off.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com