Federal Reserve Bank Bomb Plot is another pathetic FBI false flag attempt.

Run_to_da_hills

Following in the foot steps of previous so called airline terrorist attacks this has all the hallmarks of another classic and familiar false flag.

What's the purpose of this attack?

To bring "sympathy" to this corrupt private banking cartel?
Are they trying to warm us up for the "big one" IE a major 9/11 Cyber attack on Global bank networks? (Blaming Iran of course)
Or to tighten security and further strip what's left of American civil liberties?

Just look at the shifting eyes on this professional liar.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WReIjR4Jo1w

The corporate media is also claiming that the supposed Federal Reserve bomb plot mastermind may have links to al Qaeda terror networks in the middle east.

“The defendant “reported having connections” to al Qaeda, prosecutors said. But there was no allegation that he received training or direction from the terrorist group. Nafis was living in Queens,” reported CBS.

What I cannot comprehend is why on one hand America is supplying terrorists weapons to Al-Qaeda in Syria while on the other hand they claim them to be enemies to the United States in their own back yard.

http://www.pakalertpress.com/2012/10/18/false-flag-terror-federal-reserve-bank-bomb-plot-run-by-the-fbi/

Torakx

Did you catch a possible freudian slip?
Something about the city of new york being focussed on terrorism.

Monty Burnz

Surely if 'they' wanted this to be effective, 'they' would have allowed there to at least be a real bomb? Or some real damage? Or some real deaths?

Also, any news of Obama's head wound?

Run_to_da_hills

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Surely if 'they' wanted this to be effective, 'they' would have allowed there to at least be a real bomb? Or some real damage? Or some real deaths?

Have we seen any underwear bomber deaths yet?

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Also, any news of Obama's head wound?

They are working on that one.

Monty Burnz

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Have we seen any underwear bomber deaths yet?

Nope. Which backs up MY point.

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

They are working on that one.

You must be bricking it that Obama won't even get elected and your whole world view will get turned on its head (until you rationalise it away, of course).

golden lane

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Following in the foot steps of previous so called airline terrorist attacks this has all the hallmarks of another classic and familiar false flag.

What's the purpose of this attack?

To bring "sympathy" to this corrupt private banking cartel?
Are they trying to warm us up for the "big one" IE a major 9/11 Cyber attack on Global bank networks? (Blaming Iran of course)
Or to tighten security and further strip what's left of American civil liberties?

Just look at the shifting eyes on this professional liar.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WReIjR4Jo1w

The corporate media is also claiming that the supposed Federal Reserve bomb plot mastermind may have links to al Qaeda terror networks in the middle east.

“The defendant “reported having connections” to al Qaeda, prosecutors said. But there was no allegation that he received training or direction from the terrorist group. Nafis was living in Queens,” reported CBS.

What I cannot comprehend is why on one hand America is supplying terrorists weapons to Al-Qaeda in Syria while on the other hand they claim them to be enemies to the United States in their own back yard.

http://www.pakalertpress.com/2012/10/18/false-flag-terror-federal-reserve-bank-bomb-plot-run-by-the-fbi/[/QUOTE]


i believe a country is entitled to defend itself, in it's own way......

whether people from other countries, comprehend it or not.....

Run_to_da_hills

golden lane wrote: »

i believe a country is entitled to defend itself, in it's own way......

whether people from other countries, comprehend it or not.....

A country is well in its rights to defend itself against genuine terrorism but when this so called "terrorism" becomes obvious that it is staged false flaggery it is a different matter particularly when its knee jerk reactions go far beyond the borders of that particular country. An example of this would be he result of so called underwear bombers leading to the international roll out of backscatter X Ray scanners.

Monty Burnz

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

A country is well in its rights to defend itself against genuine terrorism but when this so called "terrorism" becomes obvious that it is staged false flaggery it is a different matter particularly when its knee jerk reactions go far beyond the borders of that particular country. An example of this would be he result of so called underwear bombers leading to the international roll out of backscatter X Ray scanners.

We all know that there has never been a genuine terrorist attack. No human being would really do that stuff to another.

Jonny7

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

A country is well in its rights to defend itself against genuine terrorism but when this so called "terrorism" becomes obvious that it is staged false flaggery it is a different matter particularly when its knee jerk reactions go far beyond the borders of that particular country. An example of this would be he result of so called underwear bombers leading to the international roll out of backscatter X Ray scanners.

Didn't you specify that all terrorist attacks on the West were false flags?

Whereas all those in Pakistan, India and Iraq were genuine?

Daithi 1

If the lad was acting alone, you would think they might get him on film stating what he planned to do, then nip it in the bud and not scare the bejaysus out of everyone.

But no, they let it run it's course and even supplied with with a fake bomb and most likely encouraged the lad.

So, in essence, it is a false flag. Weather or not the lad was an insider.

Monty Burnz

Daithi 1 wrote: »

If the lad was acting alone, you would think they might get him on film stating what he planned to do, then nip it in the bud and not scare the bejaysus out of everyone.

But no, they let it run it's course and even supplied with with a fake bomb and most likely encouraged the lad.

So, in essence, it is a false flag. Weather or not the lad was an insider.

You realise that talking about planting a bomb on film wouldn't stand up in court? So they'd just have to pat him on the head and let him go. There's a good reason stings have to go far enough to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the person was trying to commit a crime.

Daithi 1

Monty Burnz wrote: »

You realise that talking about planting a bomb on film wouldn't stand up in court? So they'd just have to pat him on the head and let him go. There's a good reason stings have to go far enough to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the person was trying to commit a crime.

It might never happen if they didnt encourage him though. Sounds to me like he mixed with the wrong people, got into the wrong gang.
The FBI would only be delighted to come across this guy.

"WE GOT ONE"

Monty Burnz

Daithi 1 wrote: »

It might never happen if they didnt encourage him though. Sounds to me like he mixed with the wrong people, got into the wrong gang.
The FBI would only be delighted to come across this guy.

"WE GOT ONE"

Yeah, that's where you get into the realms of entrapment - it's a live issue in legal circles and taken very seriously by the judiciary. I think the way it works is that you have to demonstrate that the guy himself was the driver of what happened - as soon as he becomes a tool of the sting team ("say, why don't you drive this bomb over here - we'll pay you well!") then it's entrapment and the case would be thrown out AIUI.

Daithi 1

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Yeah, that's where you get into the realms of entrapment - it's a live issue in legal circles and taken very seriously by the judiciary. I think the way it works is that you have to demonstrate that the guy himself was the driver of what happened - as soon as he becomes a tool of the sting team ("say, why don't you drive this bomb over here - we'll pay you well!") then it's entrapment and the case would be thrown out AIUI.

So then, if it is entrapment (i'm guessing it is), it's then a sort of false flag.

Jonny7

Daithi 1 wrote: »

If the lad was acting alone, you would think they might get him on film stating what he planned to do, then nip it in the bud and not scare the bejaysus out of everyone.

So they should censor this?

But no, they let it run it's course and even supplied with with a fake bomb and most likely encouraged the lad.

It's called a sting, it's how they catch criminals. Somehow it shouldn't be done with terrorists or extremists because it "encouraged the lad"? that doesn't make sense.

So, in essence, it is a false flag. Weather or not the lad was an insider.

Not really, he's just a hell of a lot easier to prosecute now.

Daithi 1

Jonny7 wrote: »

So they should censor this?



It's called a sting, it's how they catch criminals. Somehow it shouldn't be done with terrorists or extremists because it "encouraged the lad"? that doesn't make sense.



Not really, he's just a hell of a lot easier to prosecute now.

Monty understands. Ill chat with him.

Jonny7

Daithi 1 wrote: »

Monty understands. Ill chat with him.

It was our good cop bad cop routine

Daithi 1

Jonny7 wrote: »

It was our good cop bad cop routine

More like good cop - prick.

Jonny7

Daithi 1 wrote: »

More like good cop - prick.

Hey you shouldn't be calling Monty a prick now. He's not that bad.

Brown Bomber

Daithi 1 wrote: »

So then, if it is entrapment (i'm guessing it is), it's then a sort of false flag.

I wouldn't say that it's a false-flag but it shows how easy they are to carry out. Infiltrate a Mosque, target the slow guy, fill his head full of nonsense, massage his ego, enocourage him to carry out an attack, give a him a bomb, kaboom!, cover up your involvement.

Brown Bomber

Monty Burnz wrote: »

You realise that talking about planting a bomb on film wouldn't stand up in court? So they'd just have to pat him on the head and let him go. There's a good reason stings have to go far enough to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the person was trying to commit a crime.

That's not true to be fair. He could be charged hit with conspiracy charges, just as Khaled Sheikh Mohammed was.

In fact, he could just be dissapeared SS style and never see the inside of a court under the powers of the NDAA.

Brown Bomber

Jonny7 wrote: »

It's called a sting, it's how they catch criminals. Somehow it shouldn't be done with terrorists or extremists because it "encouraged the lad"? that doesn't make sense.

If they encourage a criminal act that wouldn't have happened otherwise it is entrapment, not a sting operation, and in Sweden is illegal.

There is an interesting leaked Stratfor e-mail published by Wikileaks from an "FBI Senior Official" to Fred Burton, Stratfor V.P. regarding the very similar "sting operation" of Jose Pimentell which lays bare the worthlessness of these entrapment cases.
http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/915038_re-alpha-note-feedback-fbi-nypd-tensions-highlighted-in.html

Fred,

There are two issues with this case (off the record or course).

One is the source was a nightmare and was completely driving the
investigation. The only money, planning, materials etc the bad guy got
was from.........the source. The source was such a maron, he smoked dope
with the bad guy while wearing an NYPD body recorder

Later in the same e-mail he says:

I keep telling you, you and I are going to laugh and raise a beer one day,
when everything Intel has been involved in during the last 10 years comes
out - it always eventually comes out. They are going to make Hoover,
COINTEL, Red Squads, etc look like rank amatures compared to some of the
damn right felonious activity, and violations of U.S. citizen's rights
they have been engaged in. As Rush Limbaugh likes to say, "don't doubt me
on this."

Monty Burnz

Brown Bomber wrote: »

That's not true to be fair. He could be charged hit with conspiracy charges, just as Khaled Sheikh Mohammed was.

In fact, he could just be dissapeared SS style and never see the inside of a court under the powers of the NDAA.

It's quite difficult to prove conspiracy charges though, which is why you don't hear of them that often even though (as everyone here would agree ) conspiracies in various forms are common.

Brown Bomber

Monty Burnz wrote: »

It's quite difficult to prove conspiracy charges though, which is why you don't hear of them that often even though (as everyone here would agree ) conspiracies in various forms are common.

Agreed, but in this instance (audio/video recordings etc) it would be straightforward. Where it would be more problematic is that the case would focus more on the "plans" rather than the actual act which would bring to the fore the issues of entrapment.

blaze99

according to patriot act you can basically throw anyone in jail for anything, so this whole "sting op" wasn't necessary, but makes it more believable

GalwayGuy2

according to patriot act you can basically throw anyone in jail for anything, so this whole "sting op" wasn't necessary, but makes it more believable

Post a quote to prove that?

Run_to_da_hills

blaze99 wrote: »

according to patriot act you can basically throw anyone in jail for anything, so this whole "sting op" wasn't necessary, but makes it more believable

More so the follow up NDAA act.

GalwayGuy2 wrote: »

Post a quote to prove that?

Judge Forrest called the NDAA’s indefinite detention allowances a “chilling impact on First Amendment rights.”

blaze99

GalwayGuy2 wrote: »

Post a quote to prove that?

Opponents of the law have criticized its authorization of indefinite detentions of immigrants; searches through which law enforcement officers search a home or business without the owner’s or the occupant’s permission or knowledge; the expanded use of National Security Letters, which allows the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to search telephone, e-mail, and financial records without a court order, and the expanded access of law enforcement agencies to business records, including library and financial records. Since its passage, several legal challenges have been brought against the act, and Federal courts have ruled that a number of provisions are unconstitutional.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Act#Controversy

GalwayGuy2

Opponents of the law have criticized its authorization of indefinite detentions of immigrants; searches through which law enforcement officers search a home or business without the owner’s or the occupant’s permission or knowledge; the expanded use of National Security Letters, which allows the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to search telephone, e-mail, and financial records without a court order, and the expanded access of law enforcement agencies to business records, including library and financial records. Since its passage, several legal challenges have been brought against the act, and Federal courts have ruled a number of provisions are unconstitutional.

Yes they have changed a lot of the provisions, like the gag order used on the people being asked for information. But can you quote the actual part of the law which can be used as an excuse to lock anybody up for any reason? I don't mean linked to a website, but just a simple direct quote from the patriot act or NDAA act?
Tbf, it is flogging a dead horse at the moment and very off topic.

Father Damo

Monty Burnz wrote: »

.

You must be bricking it that Obama won't even get elected and your whole world view will get turned on its head

He would be if he believed his own posts. Which he quite obviously doesnt.

Brown Bomber

GalwayGuy2 wrote: »

Yes they have changed a lot of the provisions, like the gag order used on the people being asked for information. But can you quote the actual part of the law which can be used as an excuse to lock anybody up for any reason? I don't mean linked to a website, but just a simple direct quote from the patriot act or NDAA act?
Tbf, it is flogging a dead horse at the moment and very off topic.

I've posted it here
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056773448&page=8

work backwards I don't fancy reading back through it again.