Free Capitalist Network - Community Archive
Mises Community Archive
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.

FBI yet again foils their own fake terrorist plot, this time targeting the NY Federal Reserve

rated by 0 users
This post has 5 Replies | 1 Follower

Not Ranked
Posts 38
Points 825
weedface Posted: Thu, Oct 18 2012 4:30 PM

At this point I wish I could laugh at the absurdly obvious nature of the federal government’s involvement in the manufacture of domestic terrorism, but unfortunately it is far too serious a matter.

For those who think the most recent case of 21-year-old Bangladeshi national Quazi Mohammad Rezwanul Ahsan Nafis and the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI’s) major role in said case is something of a fluke, think again.

Indeed, the FBI’s business is manufacturing terrorism of all kinds and breaking the law in the process. The two most recent cases I personally covered occurred in February of this year and then in May of this year as well. Let’s not forget that the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) also thwarted their own little manufactured terror plot in May of this year as well.

The most recent case involving Nafis has not bucked the trend in the slightest. According to USA Today‘s latest update at the time of writing this story, Nafis “allegedly met with an undercover FBI agent who provided him with inert explosives.”

Once again, we learn that the “terrorist” actually never was in contact with any real terrorists (other than those hiding behind the safety of a badge) and was never even able to procure real explosives.

Instead, as is the case with so many other cases of the government thwarting their own plots, we learn that Nafis actually would never have done anything if it were not for the help of the FBI.

The FBI’s narrative asserts that Nafis met the undercover FBI agent at a warehouse in the New York metro region where he “made the bomb, consisting of inert explosives, then assembled the detonator and armed the device in the van as the undercover agent drove to the Fed.”

In other words, as has been the case far too many times now, Nafis never was actually in possession of explosives and was never actually even able to get in contact with anyone but an undercover FBI agent posing as a terrorist.

 

Source

  • | Post Points: 50
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 165
Points 2,745

This is more of a gray issue because if someone attempted a terror plot, even one where the FBI orchestrated it, what if the guy did meet actual terrorists? The FBI will no doubt use the attempted "terrorist" attack to make libertarians look bad, "Those Libertarians hate the Federal Reserve too!", which is what bothers me. Anyone who is Anti-Federal Reserve will be seen as a potential terrorist, not that that is new, it just reinforces the BS.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 6,885
Points 121,845
Clayton replied on Thu, Oct 18 2012 5:26 PM

*snore*

The problem is not that the explosives were inert. I'm glad they were inert. The 1993 WTC bombing (and, likely, the OKC bombing) shows what happens when the explosives are not inert. However, the problem is that exhibiting the resourcefulness, determination and persistence required to obtain and deploy explosives as a matter of fact is an essential component of demonstrating real intent to commit a crime, something that is missing completely from these rent-a-terrorist plots that the FBI keeps foiling. Imagine how much cheaper it would be to just hand the targeted individual a big, red button and tell him you've already wired the Fed to blow and all he has to do is push the button. Film him pushing the button and then arrest him and try him for terrorism. Seems to me much less expensive than setting up these extensive movie plot scenarios complete with props and actors.

The whole idea of sting operations is inherently nonsensical. In a world of private security, there might be some infiltration here and there for intelligence purposes but the main concern of security agencies would be securing person and property, not trying to ferret out nasty people - of which there will always be a limitless supply - and prove how terribly awful and dastardly they are.

Clayton -

http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.com
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 165
Points 2,745

You make a good point Clayton.

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Posts 38
Points 825
weedface replied on Thu, Oct 18 2012 8:48 PM

*subliminal message*

terrorists don't like the federal reserve

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 200 Contributor
Male
Posts 432
Points 6,830
Groucho replied on Thu, Oct 18 2012 9:50 PM

What's so laughable about these "stings" is they make no attempt to catch anyone who would be an actual threat, but merely someone who is crazy enough to play along with their manufactured scenario.

Something tells me the "terrorist masterminds" aren't fishing from the same pool as our play-acting government bufoons. I could probably find a dozen half-crazy vagrants in San Francisco who would play along with their game too.

But obviously these little "audition stings" by the FBI aren't meant to do anything other than keep the US population terrorized (hmm, now what do we call people who do that.....) and desperate for the promise of safety. This same con has been used for thousands of years.

An idealist is one who, on noticing that roses smell better than a cabbage, concludes that it will also make better soup. -H.L. Mencken
  • | Post Points: 5
Page 1 of 1 (6 items) | RSS