Synagogue Bomb Suspects: The Feds Put Us Up to It!

Defense attorneys say an alleged plot to bomb New York synagogues was hatched and directed by a federal informant.

Lawyers for four men from Newburgh have filed a motion to dismiss the terror indictment against them.

They said the informant badgered the defendants until they got involved in the plot.

They said the informant chose the targets, supplied fake bombs for the synagogues and a fake missile to shoot down planes. The motion said he also offered to pay the defendants, who attorneys alleged weren't inclined toward any crime until the informant began recruiting them.

....

http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local-beat/Synagogue-Bomb-Suspects-The-Feds-Put-Us-Up-to-It-88579537.html


nothing new here, I guess

..."Hey! I got a way out of this!"

:eyes:

In fact, it's normal.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/18137343/the_fear_factory

"To find threats to thwart, the task forces have increasingly taken to using paid informants to cajole and inveigle targets like Shareef into pursuing their harebrained schemes."

David Cole, a law professor at Georgetown University and co-author of Less Safe, Less Free: "hen you're pressing people to undertake conduct they would have never undertaken without an informant pushing them along, there is a real question if you're creating crime, not preventing crime."

"Now, in new-age terror cases, the JTTFs simply want to establish that suspects are predisposed to be terrorists — even if they are completely unable or ill-equipped to act on that predisposition."

If they are instigating cells, and it seems pretty clear that they are, then likely they've got one or more cells that are prepared and actually capable of doing an event.

all inside jobs

you're almost there.

People like you will just keep blocking the truth from reaching a wider audience.

dude? Or, is that just the rationalization you rely upon internally to keep you from having to confront the fact that even the "truth movement" shuns you?

Man up and accept responsibility for your own failures and quit trying to blame the rest of us, dude. It's not too late to save face but you need to act soon. You're almost there.

no matter how important something is.

there are lots of topics down here. Just because your pet cause is not displayed more prominently doesn't mean it's being suppressed. Did it ever occur to you that your abject lack of proof for your goofy bullshit is largely responsible for that?

Don't blame me for you marginalizing "9/11 truth", dude.

you are definitely part of the problem

And precisely what problem would that be, Spooked?

Did it ever occur to you that people don't buy your goofy bullshit because it's goofy bullshit?

We mock things he says and does like the "bunny cage experiment" because we do not want the truth to get out.
Spooked, thanks to you, bunnies the world over can rest easy knowing that if some guy kicks over a cup of kerosene and lights it on fire, their bunny cage will not come crashing down.

... regardless of how illogical.

which is similar to what happened with the 1993 WTC bombing?

Where exactly is the poor logic?

Isn't the govt aiding and promoting an attack the definition of an "inside job"?

... what's really being alleged in the NJ case and in the Rolling Stone article you linked to is entrapment, not "false flag" setups. As I already said, the illogical part is that it makes no sense whatever to recruit wannabe Islamic terrorists and then arrest them if your interest is in having attacks happen. If you wanted "false flag" attacks to happen, it would be stupid to even fool around with any unreliable recruits, even if you were going to let them go ahead with an attack: You would just get your discrete and reliable black-ops guys to do it and then just blame it on Islamic terrorists. But entrapment, on the other hand, does seem plausible if the real objective is to make your counter-terrorism program look like it's effective, for political reasons. That's plausible because we all know that political considerations were at the top of the BushCo priority list, and also that of many career bureaucrats.

But no, neither case would be "similar to what happened with the 1993 WTC bombing." Beyond any reasonable doubt, that was planned and executed by actual terrorists; i.e. people whose existence your delusions prevent you from even acknowledging. The unsubstantiated allegations in that case -- allegations that were made only by one disgruntled informant who had been judged as unreliable and basically fired before the attack -- was that the FBI knew enough about the plot that they could have stopped it, not that they either planned the attack or coerced anyone to participate in it.

in terms of why they were arrested, there could be a few explanations--

1) someone honest at the FBI found out what was going on and broke it up

2) the FBI controllers decided these guys were too unreliable for their assigned task, and pulled the plug on the operation

3) the FBI never really planned to have this op go live, but just set it up and busted it to show
a) that jihadists were active in the US,
b) that the FBI was effective in busting up terror rings.

OK?

actually, for that matter, just about anyone makes more sense than you do.

But of course, I made perfectly valid points.

Spooked.

are probably inside jobs at some level, given the overreaching hand of the national security state.

blow the lid off of everything is permitted to walk around unmolested by this "overreaching national security state".

Go figure.

If this story is true, it sounds to me like the informants deliberately created some marketable information and then sold it. Or, if FBI employees were actually aware of and involved in it, which also hasn't been established, then it sounds like entrapment. But neither possibility resembles a "false flag" setup: If you set up a "false flag" attack, why would you arrest the people you recruited to carry it out.

Or do you just pretend to be?

This is a good example of how 9/11 crackpottery incapacitates people from dealing with real problems in the real world. But I'm sure you have no idea what I mean by that, since your "false flag" delusions prevent you from seeing what the real problem is here. Instead, you warp reality to fit your delusions, then use that warped view to justify the delusions.

Bullshit never did anyone any good.

What do you mean by this: "...since your "false flag" delusions prevent you from seeing what the real problem is here."

What do you mean by "...what the real problem is here."

Thanks.

Or are you just baiting?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

As I posted above, there are at least three good reasons why these guys may have been set up and then later arrested. Only one of these reasons has to do with entrapment.

The problem I have with your view is that you are apparently incapable of imagining that the FBI would do anything truly nefarious-- that this was all some informant gone "rogue" or who went to far. But the '93 WTC bombing shows a similar pattern of the FBI actually being the ones who are promoting the attack. And other domestic jihadist cases in the past few years show the exact same pattern.

In any case, what is delusional about knowing some history?

Oh, I'm quite capable of imagining all sorts of things, including "that the FBI would do anything truly nefarious." But when you start confusing your imagination with reality, that's called "delusion." In this case, when you believe you have divined the Truth through some apparently psychic skill rather than through evidence, that's called "delusion."

And once again, no, you are confusing your imaginary history of the '93 attack with the known facts. Not even Salem, the informant who claimed he told the FBI about the attack (a claim which has never been substantiated, by the way), has accused the FBI of "promoting the attack." Salem claims that his FBI handler at the time proposed providing the plotters with fake explosives (a plot that was already under way, by the way) but then changed his mind. It appears that what actually happened was that the FBI may have decided Salem was not credible and was simply trying to get as much money as possible. Salem doesn't have tapes of those conversations, if that's what's confusing you; he only made tapes of himself making those claims to other agents, after the attack.

because DUers must be kept sheltered from evidence that terrorism is promoted by the govt?

to neutralize the impact you could have in "getting the truth out".

See? It IS all about you, dude!

Gee, that's never happened before.