I’m wondering, because you can’t really tell the difference between an actual, unexpected bombing from an actual terrorist and a bomb plot that was helped along every step of the way by undercover FBI agents.
Typically, undercover agents will pretend to befriend a naïve and vulnerable individual, someone that could easily be identified as a terrorist (usually a foreign national who’s been in the country for a few months) and find out if they’d like to blow something up in order to “instill fear in the hearts of Americans.” Now, these foreign nationals that the FBI find don’t know a lot about explosives or planning terrorist attacks, but the undercover agents pretend to be on the “terrorist’s” side and help them with logistics and obtaining explosives.
It’s like what happened several months ago when the FBI claimed to have thwarted a terrorist attack on the New York Federal Reserve building. But that’s only a half-truth. What really happened is that the FBI started monitoring a Bangladeshi man named Nafis (who had come to this country in January of 2012) when he tried to make internet contact with another “aspiring terrorist” in July of last year.
This other aspiring terrorist was an undercover FBI agent. For the next 4 months, the FBI helped Nafis plan and coordinate a terrorist attack that was to take place in the financial district in Manhattan. FBI agents posed as Al-Qaeda operatives, making Nafis believe that he had contact with and the blessing of Al-Qaeda leadership. The FBI provided Nafis with all that he needed in order to carry out the attack, including a van filled with 1,000 pounds of inert explosives, which Nafis thought were real.
The FBI held Nafis’s hand the entire way. Sure, Nafis had the right ideology, but he didn’t have the money, resources or know-how to actually carry out a terrorist attack of that measure without getting caught in the interim. Without the FBI’s help, what would have Nafis been able to do with little money, resources or know-how? Not much, if anything.
Nafis’s case is not the only time the FBI all but carried out a terrorist attack. For the FBI, foiling their own plots is standard operating procedure:
“In November 2010, a similar ‘plot’ was engineered, then ‘disrupted,’ also by the FBI – this time in Portland, Oregon. The so-called ‘Christmas Tree Bomber’ attempted to remote detonate a van he believed was filled with explosives, provided by the FBI, before being arrested during a Christmas tree lighting ceremony at Pioneer Courthhouse Square. The FBI’s official statement regarding the incident revealed that FBI agents had handled, even detonated live explosives with the entrapped suspect at Lincoln County Park in the lead up to the final failed bombing.”
Even in their official statement regarding the Christmas tree bomber, the FBI admitted that they “detonated a bomb concealed in a backpack as a trial run for the upcoming attack.”
So was this bombing event in Boston yet another FBI-assisted plot? We’ll probably never know for sure, but what is more important is how they’re going to use this event as an excuse to impose a more heavy-handed police state on Americans.
The media love to portray America as being resilient in the face of terrorism. We’ll “never forget” 9/11. We sure won’t ever forget 9/11, because it’s been used as the excuse for every police state and big brother measure that’s been enacted. Now, we’ll have even more.
Subjecting ourselves to a police state does not constitute victory over terrorism. It’s admitting defeat. We’ve succumbed to the very goal of terrorism, which is to terrorize people to advance a political agenda. We’ve lost the “war on terror” if we think we have to give up essential liberties in order to feel “safe and secure.” That is living in a constant state of fear. Terror. The only way for us to be safe is to subject ourselves completely to the police powers of the government. And that’s exactly what the terrorists want.