treebomber2: episode197 - december 3, 2010

Uploaded by mediamonarchy on 04.12.2010

"...was clear on being involved in a operational, um,
having an 'operational participation' in a violent jihad. um, of course his defense,
his defense attorneys are gonna work to challenge that & suggest that
what FBI officials were doing was grooming him to participate in this plot."
'grooming him to participate in this plot'
that was my compilation of clips detailing the 'portland treebomber patsy'
and again, all those are linked up in the main story all those videos and all the other articles
it's all laid out for you.
but we're gonna continue on this other side of the compilation of clips and take it from
glenn greenwald: 'the FBI successfully thwarts it's own terrorist plot'
"the FBI's obviously quite pleased with itself over the arrest of the nineteen-year-old
somali-american mohamed osman mohammed who, with months of encouragement, support and
money from the FBI's own undercover agents,
allegedly attempted to detonator bomb at a crowded christmas event in portland, oregon.
media accounts almost uniformly trumpeting the event
exactly as the FBI described it.
loyalists of both parties doing the same, with the democratic party commentators proclaiming
that this proves just
how great & effective democrats are
at stopping those evil terrorists. while right-wing polemicists point to this arrest as yet more
proof that those menacing muslims sure are violent and dangerous.
what's missing from all these celebrations is one iota of questioning or skepticism.
all the information about this episode, all of it, comes exclusively from an FBI affidavit
filed in connection with the criminal complaint against mohammed.
as shocking & as upsetting is this may be: some FBI claims are sometimes one-sided,
unreliable and even untrue.
especially when such claims, as here, are uncorroborated & unexamined.
that's why
we have what we call 'trials' before assuming guilt or even before
believing that we know what happened.
because the government doesn't always tell the complete truth,
because they often skew reality because things often look much different once the accused
is permitted to present his own facts
and subject the government's claims
to scrutiny.
the FBI affidavit,
as well as whatever its agents are whispering in the years of reporters, contains only those
facts the FBI chose to include but omits the ones that chose to exclude
and even the facts that are included as merely,
ARE merely assertions at this point & thus may not be facts at all.
it may very well be that the FBI successfully,
and within legal limits, arrested a dangerous criminal intent on carrying out a serious
terrorist plot
that would've killed many innocent people,
in which case they deserved praise.
court-approved surveillance and use of undercover agents to infiltrate terrorist plots are legitimate
tactics when used in accordance with the law.
but it may also just be as easily the case that the FBI,
as they've done many many times in the past,
found some very young, impressionable, disaffected, hapless, aimless, inept loners,
created a plot it then persuaded, manipulated & trapped him into joining,
essentially turning him into a terrorist
and then patted itself on the back once it arrested him for having thwarted a terrorist
plot, which from start to finish was the FBI's own concoction entirely.
having stopped the plot, which itself manufactured, the FBI then publicly touts
and an uncritical media amplifies
its success to the world, thus proving that both domestic terrorism from muslims is a
serious threat
& the government's vast surveillance powers,
current & future new ones,
are necessary.
there are numerous claims here that merit further security & questioning, rather scrutiny &
first: the FBI was monitoring the e-mail communications of this american citizen on
US soil for months at least,
with what appears to be the flimsiest basis, namely that he was in e-mail communication
with someone in north-west pakistan, an area known to harbor terrorsts. paragraph five of
the affidavit.
is that enough for court approval to eavesdrop on someone's calls and emails
glad the FBI's only eavesdropping with court approval if that's true, but certainly more
should be required for judicial authorization than that.
communicating with someone in north-west pakistan is hardly reasonable grounds for suspicion.
in order not to be found to have entrapped someone into committing a crime, law enforcement
agents wanna be able to prove that,
in the 1992 words of the supreme court, the accused was quote:
'independently predisposed to commit the crime for which he was arrested' endquote
to prove that, undercover agents are often careful to stress that the accused has multiple
choices, and they then induce him into choosing with his own volition to commit the crime.
in this case, that was achieved by the undercover FBI agents allegedly advising mohammed
that they were at least five ways he could serve the cause of islam:
praying, studying, engineering, raising funds to send overseas or becoming
mohammed replied he wanted to be 'operational' by using an exploding bomb.
but strangely, while all other conversations with muhammad
which the FBI summarizes, were according to the affidavit, recorded by various recording
this conversation,
the crucial one for negating mohammed's entrapment defense
was not that's because according to the FBI the undercover agent quote:
'was equipped with audio equipment to record the meeting, however due to technical problems
the meeting was not recorded.'
paragraph 37
thus we only have the FBI's word and only its version for what was said during this
crucial, potentially dispositive conversation. also strangely,
the original new york times article on the story described the conversation at some length
and reported the fact that
'the meeting was not recorded due to a technical difficulty'
but the final version of that new york times article ommitted that, instead simply repeating
the FBI's story as though it were fact.
third: ample facts that call into question whether mohammed's actions were driven by the FBI's manipulation &
pressure, rather than his own predisposition to commit a crime.
in june, he tried to fly to alaska to get
a fishing job he obtained through a friend, but he was on the government's no-fly list
that caused the FBI to question him at the airport and then bar him from flying to alaska
and thus preventing him from earning income with the job.
having prevented him from working, the FBI
the money the FBI then pumped him with, including almost $3,000 in
cash for him to rent his own apartment.
surely helped
make him receptive to their suggestions & influence
and every other step taken to perpetrate this plot, from planning its placement, to assembling
the materials, to constructing the bomb was all done at the FBI's behest and with its
indispensable support & direction.
it's impossible to conceive of muhammad having actually achieved anything on his own before
being ensnared by the FBI, the only tangible action he had taken
was to write three articles on
fitness & jihad for the online magazine 'jihad recollections'
at least based on what is known, he had no history of violence, no apparent criminal record,
had never been to training camp in afghanistan, pakistan or anywhere else and before meeting
the FBI
had never taken a single step towards harming anyone.
does that sound like some menacing sleeper terrorist to you?"
at the end of the article he adds the update about the arson
which we heard referenced in our clips.
"the mosque sometimes attended by mohammed was victimized by arson
so the FBI didn't stop any actual terrorist plots,
but they may have helped inspire one."
again, that's the great piece from glenn greenwald, breaking down the portland tree bomber with
the part we wanted to shine a light on & that would be the crucial missing recordings
central to this whole case.
i did mention the great article on 'feds plane inert bomb in portland
before arresting muslim man'
police could have arrested the man sooner, but they took part in his suspected terrorist
this article fortunately points out many things that: what if he was connected up to some other
group? the compartmentalization within intelligence agencies, sometimes the left hand doesn't know what
the right hand is doing.
what if there was a simultaneous bomb set to go off at the same time?
how do we know he couldn't have been working with a second group that law enforcement
didn't know about?
it goes on to mention british SAS soldiers arrested by iraqi police dressed
as arabs.
and all the host of other
false flag terror activities.
we even grab an update from google news this morning, december 3rd:
'muslims react to terror suspect video' this is from KPTV:
"the exclusive cellphone video of terror suspect mohammed mohammed
obtained by KPTV features remarks about americans that many muslims that they found
inappropriate, regardless of the context. an unnamed source tells KPTV the video
was taken on iphone on may 22nd
in an oregon state university dorm room. it is not known who the rant was directed toward
but the source said
it followed some sort of confrontation. quote:
"you know what the whole west thing is? they wanna insult our religion, they want to take our
lands, they wanna rape are women while we're bowing down to them. that's what they want."
this could very well relate to
the question that i always ask that: even if you believe the official stories of 9/11
and the 'war of terror'
you would go back to
the terrorists and they say
'we do this because you invade
our lands'
even if you believe the official story
that's what it traces back to, even if you believe the official story you've gotta know that it
traces back to the mujahadeen
and brzezinski and gates and the central intelligence agency
and training and funding enemies,
that's how the 'grand chessboard' movesÉ