Assange Warns About Vegas Shooting: ‘Almost All Terror Plots are Created by the FBI’

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange weighed in on last Sunday night’s deadly mass shooting in Las Vegas, and he pointed out that the FBI has a sordid history of targeting mentally ill and emotionally unstable individuals.

“Almost all ‘terror’ plots are created by the FBI as part of its business model,” Assange wrote.


CASUAL REMINDER that the FBI preys on lonely vulnerable people + convinces them to create terror plots, then takes credit for stopping them.

Almost all "terror" plots are created by the FBI as part of its business model.

What is the business of the FBI? Extracting tax. What does it need to do that? A stable threat. Prob? Real terrorists are sporadic & make FBI look weak. Solution? Make them.http://uk.businessinsider.com/fbi-is-manufacturing-terrorism-cases-2016-6?r=US&IR=T pic.twitter.com/qMrkbFKMJe

View image on Twitter


Arguably one of the world’s most respected journalists, whom members of the federal government want to label a spy, Assange linked his comments to a Business Insider story written by Caroline Simone titled, “The FBI is ‘manufacturing terrorism cases’ on a greater scale than ever before.” Simone wrote an echo piece from the New York Times which indicated that 67% of terrorism criminal cases also involved evidence provided by undercover FBI agents.

Simone wrote an echo piece for the New York Times, which indicated that 67 percent of terrorism criminal cases also involved evidence provided by undercover FBI agents.

Sami Osmakac is one such poor and emotionally unstable individual, also referenced in Assange’s tweet, who the FBI groomed to be one of their nabbed terrorists. Democracy Now covered the Osmakac case and provided a synopsis:

“How the FBI Created a Terrorist.” That’s the subtitle of a new exposé in The Intercept by Trevor Aaronson, a journalist who investigates the FBI’s use of informants in sting operations. The article tells the story of Sami Osmakac, a mentally disturbed, financially unstable young man who was targeted by an elaborately orchestrated FBI sting in early 2012. The operation involved a paid informant who hired Osmakac for a job, when he was too broke to afford inert government weapons. The FBI provided the weapons seen in a so-called martyrdom video Osmakac filmed before he planned to deliver what he believed was a car bomb to a bar in Tampa, Florida. His family believes Osmakac never would have initiated such a plot without the FBI.

The New York Times‘ Eric Lichtblau wrote:

The F.B.I. has significantly increased its use of stings in terrorism cases, employing agents and informants to pose as jihadists, bomb makers, gun dealers or online “friends” in hundreds of investigations into Americans suspected of supporting the Islamic State, records and interviews show.

Unfortunately, the list of individuals the FBI has entrapped, as some have charged, also includes dozens of individuals who are either mentally ill or emotionally unstable.

“They’re manufacturing terrorism cases,” said Michael German, a former undercover agent with the F.B.I. who researches national security law at New York University’s Brennan Center for Justice. In many of the recent prosecutions, he said, “these people are five steps away from being a danger to the United States.

Critics such as Michael German should know, he used to work for the FBI as an undercover agent. German charges that if left alone, those so-called terrorists would likely not hurt anyone. However, the FBI disagrees. They contend if they wait around and do nothing, those individuals with terrorist leanings will act on their plans and impulses.

Ironically enough, Fox News’ Judge Napolitano agrees. He addressed the FBI’s controversial practice of latching on to emotionally unstable individuals, befriending them, giving them a terror plot to conduct, empowering them to conduct it, and giving them the final pushes needed to carry out those terror plots. Here’s the segment below:

Napolitano accurately reported that all of the attempted terror plots the FBI has interrupted, were, in his words, “created by the Feds.” In other words, they manufacture a terror plot, locate a willing participant to be characterized as the bad guy “terrorist,” and then foil the plot just as it is about to be carried out.

Do you remember the “shoe bomber,” the “underwear bomber” and the “Times Square bomber“? The individuals at the heart of those foiled terror plots were, in Napolitano’s words “bumbling fools,” or bad actors in the FBI’s planned foiled terrorist operations, but who were stopped concerned citizens—not the FBI.

But Napolitano calls the “more curious cases,” the ones who the FBI groomed, empowered and unsurprisingly nabbed just before they carried out their attacks. The judge charges the FBI “befriended, cajoled, and persuaded them” to attack Americans. Doesn’t that make them a State-sponsor of terrorism, albeit foiled terrorism?

Unfortunately, there is inherent risk involved with arming potential terrorists for a FBI-sponsored terror sting. Sometimes those plots don’t go as plan and there is always a potential for the bad actor to actually be successful with going through with the terrorist attack.

It is still too early to know if Paddock was one such bad actor in an FBI terror sting operation gone bad. According to the lead FBI agent in the “1-October” case, Aaron Rouse, the FBI is tracking down every lead both in the U.S. and overseas, and if people want to report any information, they should contact the FBI directly.

Taken together, Assange’s tweet, combined with the accurate reporting of left-leaning New York Times and right-leaning Fox News, a vivid picture emerges. The left, the right, and the independent are all becoming aware of just how dangerous the FBI’s anti-terrorism stings can be, especially if Paddock’s murderous rampage is revealed to be the work of an FBI sting operation gone bad.

Bad actors are needed, after all, to continue the endless War on Terror, and they are useful in creating revenue for the FBI, Assange contended. He wrote that they are especially needed for “taxes” and represent a “stable” and legitimate “threat.” Assange also added the plot, execute, intercept model the FBI currently uses is their “business model.” Without it, presumably, their business fails.

http://www.dcclothesline.com/2017/10/09/assange-warns-about-vegas-s...

Views: 60

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I do not have much doubt that these events are some combination of FBI / CIA and that it seems clear that the "news" events are carefully staged and the verbage controlled. Nothing in this country that comes from government is honest anymore.

In reference to Paddock it is reported that he purchased his arsenal of weaponry legally.

We all know that buying a gun, even a shotgun for bird hunting, requires a background check and a waiting period. Did Paddock buy these guns all at the same time? No. And there was a record of his purchases as to what he was buying and when.

Did this record of purchase by a single individual, accumulating all this weaponry ( none of it sporting arms), not raise an alarm at all?

There will be no official answer to that question. If addressed at all it will be dismissed, or deflected as to being just another problem that demands abandonment of  the Second Amendment.

RSS

LIGHTER SIDE

 

Political Cartoons by AF Branco

Political Cartoons by AF Branco

ALERT ALERT

Horrible: Democrats Set The Constitution On Fire With Fraudulent Impeachment

House Democrats unveiled two articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump on Tuesday morning after an investigation that violated fundamental provisions of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

The investigation of the president began with the complaint of a so-called “whistleblower” who turned out to be a rogue Central Intelligence Agency employee, protected by a lawyer who had called for a “coup” against Trump in early 2017.

Democrats first demanded that the “whistleblower” be allowed to testify. But after House Intelligence Committee chair Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) was found to have lied about his committee’s contact with the “whistleblower,” and after details of the “whistleblower’s” bias began to leak, Democrats reversed course. In violation of the President Trump’s Sixth Amendment right to confront his accuser, Democrats refused to allow the “whistleblower” to testify. They argue the president’s procedural rights, even if they existed, would not apply until he was tried in the Senate — but they also invented a fraudulent “right to anonymity” that, they hope, might conceal the whistleblower even then.

Schiff began the “impeachment inquiry” in secret, behind the closed doors of the Sensitive Compartmentalized Information Facility (SCIF) in the basement of the U.S. Capitol, even though none of the testimony was deemed classified. Few members of Congress were allowed access. Schiff allowed selective bits of testimony to leak to friendly media, while withholding transcripts of testimony.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), having allowed the secret process to unfold, legitimized it with a party-line vote authorizing the inquiry. The House resolution denied President Trump the procedural rights enjoyed by Presidents Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton, and denied the minority party the traditional right to object to witnesses called by the majority.

Rather than the House Judiciary Committee, which traditionally handles impeachment, Pelosi also deputized the House Intelligence Committee to conduct fact-finding; the Judiciary Committee was turned into a rubber stamp. Schiff held a few public hearings, but often failed to release transcripts containing exculpatory evidence until after they had passed.

In the course of the Intelligence Committee’s investigation, Schiff quietly spied on the telephone records of his Republican counterpart, Ranking Member Devin Nunes (R-CA). He also snooped on the phone records of a journalist, John Solomon; and on the phone records of former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani, acting as President Trump’s personal lawyer.

Schiff’s eavesdropping violated both the First Amendment right to press freedom and the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Yet he proceeded undeterred by constitutional rights, publishing the phone logs in his committee’s report without warning, confirmation, or explanation, alleging that Nunes and the others were part of a conspiracy to assist the president’s allegedly impeachable conduct. When Republicans on the Judiciary Committee asked the Intelligence Committee’s majority counsel, Daniel Goldman, to explain the phone logs, he refused to answer,

Ironically, Schiff had done exactly what Democrats accuse Trump of doing: abused his power to dig up dirt on political opponents, then obstructed a congressional investigation into his party’s and his committee’s misconduct.

Democrats’ articles of impeachment include one for the dubious charge of “abuse of power,” which is not mentioned in the Constitution; and one for “obstruction of Congress,” which in this case is an abuse of power in itself.

Alexander Hamilton, writing about impeachment in Federalist 65, warned that “there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.” Democrats have fulfilled Hamilton’s worst fears.

The Trump impeachment will soon replace the 1868 impeachment of President Andrew Johnson — which the House Judiciary Committee staff actually cited as a positive precedent — as the worst in American history.

In service of their “coup,” Democrats have trampled the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The Republic has never been in greater danger.

You don't get to interrupt me

© 2019   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service