Jump to content
Islamic Forum
Sign in to follow this  
darla_1753

6 Men Trying To Attack Army Base

Recommended Posts

Salaam,

 

(you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetcnn(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/2007/US/05/08/fortdix.plot/index.html"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetcnn(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/2007/US/05/08/fortdix.plot/index.html[/url]

 

Ok, Ironically, can people *ignore* the Islamic terrorism bit (it's not as fun as the other bits).

 

1. 6 men trying to attack an army base... come on, that's about as clever as attacking an NRA group meeting.

For those not in the know, Darwin Awards are given to people who have died in really stupid ways, thus their death contributes to the improvement of the human gene pool as they have removed themselves from it. These guys were caught before they died, so they're not eligible but surely they should be offered an honoury award? (you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetdarwinawards(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetdarwinawards(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/[/url] if you want to check them out, they are quite amusing in a morbid kind of way.

 

2. Can it *really* be classed as terrorism when you're attacking an army/soldiers? If we can all agree that the primary purpose of terrorism is to spread terror, civilians are really needed for this because if you're just attacking the military no terror is spread. Sure, it's not *nice* to kill anyone, even if they are a soldier, but there is an element of the fact that the army isn't exactly the career you sign up to for a quiet, safe life.

 

 

Peace and Love,

 

DARLA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PropellerAds

:j: and Peace

I have read the darwin awards book, although they are funny I'm not quite sure how I feel about making a mockery of death.

I especially don't like the ones about suicides as I really don't condone it and I don't think it should be publicized.

Anyhow...

Terrorism has often confused me, I don't see how someone can link it to Islam because it's just like comparing chalk and cheese.

Islam is a peaceful religion, otherwise why would Allah (swt) place such ayahs in the Quraan?

 

"He who created life and death, that He may test which of you is best in deed. He is the mighty, the forgiving." (Qur'an 67:2)

 

"No one can die except by God's permission, the terms being fixed as by writing." (Qur'an 3:145)

 

Life is sacred.

 

Thus it is clear that the giver of life and death is God Himself alone, and anyone acting on His behalf must act according to His principles.

Thanks for the viewpoint darla.

:sl:

:sl: and peace

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:sl:/Peace

 

This happened in my neighboring state and it was seen as a quasi attack on the U.S. on American soil (almost another 9-11 on a slighter level). The event upset me deeply, as it brought me to realize that people will take this as yet another incident to spread false information regarding Islam. I just hope that people will rely on the Qur'aan as their means of learning about Islam rather than the news.

 

Anyway sorry for going off topic. In regard to what you're saying...actually, they were close to getting away with it. They were going to pose as pizza delivery guys, who have practically unlimited access to the army base.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:sl:

 

Oh, and your second point is also very interesting. They were clear on their desire to kill as many "soldiers" as possible. But are the soldiers at war with them? That's the question I ask myself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salaam,

 

It worries me greatly that all Mr Evil Terrorist has to do is say "12 inch pepperoni" and they're in.

 

It also worries me that people can buy AK47s in a shop. (We just dont get US gun laws, I'm afraid. It's a bit like why you insist on pronouncing 'Aluminium' wrongly j/k :sl: )

 

Sister Truth, I agree making a mockery of death is wrong. Maybe I'm being picky but for Darwin Awards I would say I'm making mockery of stupidity which had an unfortunate side effect of death.

 

Peace and Love,

 

DARLA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As salaamu alaykum,

Please keep the South Jersey Muslims in you dua. Me and my husband were good friends with some of the brothers and their family. They have had the Feds out here all day making random stops.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It also worries me that people can buy AK47s in a shop.

 

Actually, they got these weapons on the black market.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I quote : ' 6 men charged in plot to attack Fort Dix By WAYNE PARRY, Associated Press Writer

Tue May 8, 7:09 PM ET

 

FORT DIX, N.J. - Six foreign-born Muslims were arrested and accused Tuesday of plotting to attack Fort Dix and slaughter scores of U.S. soldiers. '

 

Now let us compare the news above with the news below:

 

Marine tells of civilians shot to death

Los Angeles Times - 2 hours ago

From AP. CAMP PENDLETON - A Marine squad leader who led an attack in Haditha, Iraq, that killed 24 civilians shot five men as they stood with their hands up and told comrades to lie about it, a Marine sergeant testified Wednesday.

 

COMMENT:

 

The 6 Muslims did not kill anybody. Buying weapons including M 16, AK 47 etc is a normal practice USA. In fact 70 millions of Americans own guns including the assault rifles in USA. And FBI and the presecutors are the only people who make the statements to implicate the men in the alleged crime. They are prejudging the men by making such accusation against the men. Many Americans also watch violent movies and documentary films in USA. If FBI accused the men of watching violent tapes then all the Americans who watch the violent tapes etc are terrorists too !

 

The Zionist media make it a top news in USA and feed the news to the World news as a propaganda to slander, frame and blame Muslims and Islam.

 

How can FBI, the prosecutors, and the Zionist media prejudge the men before they are proven guilty beyond any reasonable doubts by a fair and just court? Give them their right to have a fair trial and please don't mislead the public by giving statements that may influence the juries and the public to be unfair to the men.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:sl:

 

Oh, and your second point is also very interesting. They were clear on their desire to kill as many "soldiers" as possible. But are the soldiers at war with them? That's the question I ask myself.

 

 

Comment:

 

How do you know that it is their desire to kill as many soldiers as possible? Did they tell you that or the media and FBI tell you so? You are prejudging them by saying such thing. Please be fair to them and give them a chance to prove their innocence.

 

Is it wrong to the US soldiers? I thinl it is not wrong to kill the soldiers for they belong to the US Armed Forces that are attacking, invading and occupying sovereign countries such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia etc. And the soldiers of the US Armed Forces are attacking and destroying civilian targets such as Masjids, schools, kindergartens, hospitals, farms, villages, towns etc and terrorizing, raping, torturing, murdering and massacring innocent and defenseless people in Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia ! The American soldiers should return to USA and mind their own business instead of terrorizing the innocent and defenseless people of foreign countries.

 

Was it wrong for the French people to kill Nazi soldiers who were occupying French? Was it wrong for the Russians to kill Nazi soldiers who were invading Russia? Was it wrong for the Americans to kill Nazi soldiers who were invading Europe? Was it wrong for the German soldiers to kill American soldiers who were invading Germany? Was it wrong for the Korean people to kill the Americans who were invading Korea? Was it wrong for the Vietnamese people to kill the American soldiers who were invading Vietnam?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salaam,

 

Haqqul, you ask the interesting question 'are the soldiers at war with them'. I would say, had the soldiers been conscripted it might have made a bit of difference, but not much. However, the highest levels of US government have declared a war on terror and a war has two fighting sides.

 

Also, I doubt any of us would find much wrong with armed people attacking an armed base in Iraq (of either side). I assume soldiers on home bases are as liable to be sent to Iraq as anyone else so I would assume th base would be on a 'war' footing.

 

If war has been declared, is there a difference between attacking army bases on their home soil as opposed to forgeign soil?

 

Thoughts people?

 

Peace and Love,

 

DARLA

 

ps: whilst I appreciate all the comments made, can we assume, for the sake of the two debates laid out in my first post,that the reports from CNN etc are substantially true? It just means we're all working on a common ground and there are several other threads to discuss media inaccuracies/bias.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ps: whilst I appreciate all the comments made, can we assume, for the sake of the two debates laid out in my first post,that the reports from CNN etc are substantially true? It just means we're all working on a common ground and there are several other threads to discuss media inaccuracies/bias.

 

 

My comment:

 

Can I ASSUME for the sake of the debates that you are a terrorist too? It just means we're all working on a common ground.

 

Do you like if I ASSUME that you are terrorist?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salaam,

 

Erm, slightly unnecessary response to a polite request.

 

If you consider my ability to deconstruct gender in C16th Europe a terrorist activity then yes, I'm the biggest, baddest little-Miss-Evil out there :sl:, otherwise I wouldn't know where to start (chemistry was never my strong point and guns (even water pistols) scare the **** out of me!)

 

Feel free to start a new thread on the accuracy of the news reports on this topic, as the topic starter, I was just asking for it to be restricted as I don't want it to become another 9/11 thread as I, personally, consider the issue of the point at which acts become acceptable to be more interesting. If you would prefer to discuss it from another angle, please feel free to do so in a new thread and not feel compelled to post in this one.

 

God Bless,

 

Peace and Love,

 

DARLA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How do you know that it is their desire to kill as many soldiers as possible? Did they tell you that or the media and FBI tell you so? You are prejudging them by saying such thing. Please be fair to them and give them a chance to prove their innocence.

:sl:

 

It was a direct quotation taken from one of the men. Did the media alter it? Probably not, but I suppose anything's possible. :j: for pointing that out and for your post which I found interesting.

 

:sl:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:sl:

 

Oh, and your second point is also very interesting. They were clear on their desire to kill as many "soldiers" as possible. But are the soldiers at war with them? That's the question I ask myself.

 

"We were able to do what law enforcement is supposed to do in the post-9/11 era - stay one step ahead of those who are attempting to cause harm to innocent US citizens," he said.

 

 

[using large font size is not allowed]Fort Dix is used for military training, particularly for reservists. [using large font size is not allowed]

 

[using large font size is not allowed]

you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6635669.stm

 

Since when did US soldiers who r killing ppl in Iraq & Afghnistan become innocent.

 

 

[using large font size is not allowed]

Seventy soldiers based in the Chicago area left for Fort Dix Thursday morning. The Army Reservists will undergo training and then ship out for Iraq. "We just got married in January. So we will have spent more time apart than together," said Katherine Bissonette, wife of Reservist.

 

(you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_abclocal.go(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/wls/story?section=local&id=5291985"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_abclocal.go(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/wls/story?section=l...&id=5291985[/url]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Role of Informer in Fort Dix Plot Questioned

 

The FBI informer who infiltrated a group allegedly plotting to attack Fort Dix may have played a key role in motivating the group to focus its plans and take steps to buy high-powered weapons, according to an analysis today in the New York Times.

 

The informer, who pretended to be an Egyptian with military experience, quickly became a central figure in a New Jersey-based group of angry young men who spent hours talking jihad and guns but had little idea how to pull off a terrorist attack. The men turned to the informer to show them, according to the NYT. Mohamed Shnewer, one of the suspects, wanted the informer to lead the attack on the army base.

 

"...I am at your services as you have more experience than me in military bases and in life," Shnewer told the informer in a taped conversation.

 

Questions about entrapment and whether or not the informer went too far to help coalesce diffuse talk of violence into actionable plans are bound to come up in court. The NYT analysis holds that the criminal complaint indicates that the informer pressed the group to buy the deadliest weapons possible for an attack, even after the men expressed hesitation. The informer set up the sting that resulted in the arrests. But the complaint also suggests that the suspects were serious about their intent to cause harm, stockpiling small arms and repeatedly expressing a willingness to kill.

 

(you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_blog.wired(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/27bstroke6/2007/05/role_of_informe.html"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_blog.wired(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/27bstroke6/2007/05/r...of_informe.html[/url]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In all fairness, I'm afraid that I must admit that a US base wherever it is can be a legitimate target. I don't know where Geneva stands on weekend soldiers, however.

 

And guys, I really don't think this is a hoax. There is an incredible amount of evidence stacked up against these Jihadis, Including the fact that they have records of them trying to buy weapons overseas, training in the Poconos, etc.

 

######, as he is apparently calling himself now, show his utter ignorance about two sentences into his screed. No, it is not common practice to buy assault rifles in the US, as they are banned in most (if not all) states for civilian use. Even if 70 million Americans own guns, the vast majority of those are 9mm pistols. They placed these orders for big weapons on the black market, which raises eyebrows whether the buyers are muslim or not.

 

Also, ######, do you even have a fundemental understanding about how the judicial system works? Why don't you think that the prosecutors would be the ones to accuse these men? They are citizens, they will get defence attorneys, they will be judged by a jury of their peers, and if found guilty, will not probably be sent to guantanamo since they seem to have operated indipendently, but will be imprisoned in a federal institution, like any other criminal. They will get to appeal the verdict all the way up to the supreme court if they feel like it. And since they did not kill anyone, they probably won't get the death penalty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salaam,

 

Russ, we seem to have similar thoughts on the idea of legitimate targets. Do you feel that if a state of war has not been declared, that bases are still legitimate targets? To me, these guys are more legitimate (although, to return to post 1, still stupid) because US is on a war footing. I'm not sure I would find the action as philosophically acceptable if war hadn't been declared.

 

You mean some states might NOT ban the sale of AK47s? I like so many things about America and am confused by so many others!

 

Because of my complete ignorance on guns etc (if it hasn't been on CSI, I don't have a clue and even on CSI it's a bit like watching them speak in klingon), is the idea of a group of 6 men armed with AK47s (which I believe are the ones used by kids in African conflict? Hollywood teaches so much) trying to attack an army base as stupid as it sounds? I've been on a lot of UK bases and I know they all have soldiers with guns standing guard (the guns are big and scary, no idea what type. As it's the UK army they probably don't work) and I'm damned sure there are more people around with guns as well. Unless you have an armoured vehcle it would seem pretty difficult. I would assume that US bases have even tighter security?

 

 

Remember, according to some members on IF if someone calls themselves Muslim then they could never be a bad person. Someone, normally the zionists in conspiracy with the flying pig [insert relevent comment about lack of religious conviction in associating with non-kosher meat here], set them up....

 

Peace and Love,

 

DARLA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Russ, we seem to have similar thoughts on the idea of legitimate targets. Do you feel that if a state of war has not been declared, that bases are still legitimate targets? To me, these guys are more legitimate (although, to return to post 1, still stupid) because US is on a war footing. I'm not sure I would find the action as philosophically acceptable if war hadn't been declared.
There is still the question of if these guys where at war with the US in the first place. They don't seem to be affiliated with any group, so it seems as if this war was simply the US versus these six guys. In answer to your question, no, in peace time bases aren't a legitimate target, but wartime and peacetime is in the eye of the beholder. Anyone can declare war or peace. I suppose the arguement could be made that they are always legitimate targets. I'm not sure...

 

You mean some states might NOT ban the sale of AK47s? I like so many things about America and am confused by so many others!

 

I actually just said that to cover myself so I could have time to check, but alas, it turns out I was wrong... in a big way. In the US there are state laws and federal laws. A federal law banning assault and semi-automatic weapons was passed in 1994, but it expired in 2004 thanks to the Bush admin. and a uber-conservative republican congress. As of today, only 7 states have upheld an assualt weapons ban. That is reeeally bad! Methinks I shall edit my post... Ahem, but I stand by my statement that the vast majority of those who buy guns usually only buy handguns for self-defense. Even the self-proclaimed militias often limit themselves to hunting rifles and shotguns.

 

I'm not that up to date on US gun laws. Even I didn't know that it was so bad. My apologies to ###### for jumping the gun a bit.

 

You assume correctly that our bases are well guarded. They probably would have failed, though they did seem to have a fairly articulate plan, which even included cutting the power.

Edited by Russ of Vespuccia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salaam,

 

Cutting the power isn't good planning, it's having read 'The Famous Five' books when a child!

 

Whilst a state of war is largely in the eye of the beholder, when a country has decided to declare war on a concept it makes the number of enemies endless. The 'war on terror' was great in helping to sort out the NI conflict (suddenly a lot the the Americans who had previously funded the IRA realised paying for the blowing up of city centres wasn't a nice thing any more and the IRA rapidly went for peace.) but is potentially endless.

 

Peace and Love,

 

DARLA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure what the anti-US people (to use a gross generalisation) are concerned about here. Even if it is the case that the US is at war with terrorists anywhere, so terrorists are entitled to kill US soldiers anywhere, you can't complain that the US prosecutes terrorists who try. If they happen to be US citizens they are lucky not to be charged with treason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:sl:

 

It was a direct quotation taken from one of the men. Did the media alter it? Probably not, but I suppose anything's possible. :j: for pointing that out and for your post which I found interesting.

 

:sl:

 

MY COMMENT:

 

How do you know that it was a direct quotation taken from one of the men? Did the media tell you so? The media have been known to alter news to favor the owners of the media who are mostly Zionists! The media also provoke the illegal war on Iraq by inventing lies such as the non-existent WMDs in Iraq. And we know that the Zionist media are inventing lies and fairy tales to trick the Americans into attacking Iran!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not sure what the anti-US people (to use a gross generalisation) are concerned about here. Even if it is the case that the US is at war with terrorists anywhere, so terrorists are entitled to kill US soldiers anywhere, you can't complain that the US prosecutes terrorists who try. If they happen to be US citizens they are lucky not to be charged with treason.

 

 

MY COMMENT:

 

The US Armed Forces and their soldiers become legitimate targets when the US Armed Forces and their soldiers attack, invade and occupy sovereign countries and they attack and destroy civilian targets and terrorize, rape, torture, murder and massacre innocent people of the countries such as Iraq, Somalia and Afghanistan. By violating the Geneva Conventions and the International Law, the US Armed Forces and their soldiers are the terrorists.

 

Why don't you call the US soldiers, Marines etc the terrorists instead of calling the 6 Muslim men ' the terrorists' who did not and do not kill anybody? You are practising double standard...You are biased!

 

Bush declares that Iraq is a legitimate targets for having WMDs eventhough we and the UN inspectors and the US Armed Forces did not and do not find any WMDs in Iraq so by using Bush's declaration the US regime and its US Armed Forces are the legitimate targets for having so many WMDs and nuclear weapons in USA!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MY COMMENT ON Russ of Vespuccia 'S STATEMENTS:

 

'Russ of Vespuccia' said "In all fairness, I'm afraid that I must admit that a US base wherever it is can be a legitimate target. I don't know where Geneva stands on weekend soldiers, however.

"

 

My response: During the Second World War , the American Air Force attacked and bombed Germany to kill innocent and defenseless German civilians and weekend soldiers. Therefore the US weekend soldiers can be attacked and killed by their enemies in USA. After all it is the US Armed Forces that are attacking and terrorizing sovereign countries such as Iraq, Somalia, Afghanistan etc and massacre innocent and defenseles people of the countries.

 

'Russ of Vespuccia' said " And guys, I really don't think this is a hoax. There is an incredible amount of evidence stacked up against these Jihadis, Including the fact that they have records of them trying to buy weapons overseas, training in the Poconos, etc. Also, ######, do you even have a fundemental understanding about how the judicial system works? Why don't you think that the prosecutors would be the ones to accuse these men? They are citizens, they will get defence attorneys, they will be judged by a jury of their peers, and if found guilty, will not probably be sent to guantanamo since they seem to have operated indipendently, but will be imprisoned in a federal institution, like any other criminal. They will get to appeal the verdict all the way up to the supreme court if they feel like it. And since they did not kill anyone, they probably won't get the death penalty.

"

 

My response: Since when you, FBI, the prosecutors and the media become the judges over the case? You , FBI, the prosecutors and the media are prejudging the six Muslim men that may inlfuence the juries and public to deny the right of the men to have a fair trial. During the Oklahoma Bombing, Muslims were prejudged by the US authorities and the media that caused the non-Muslims to terrorize and persecute Muslims in USA. Then it was found out that the terrorists who bombed the Federal building were the Christians themselves! And the Muslims become the victims of the US bigotry!

 

'Russ of Vespuccia' said " ######, as he is apparently calling himself now, show his utter ignorance about two sentences into his screed. No, it is not common practice to buy assault rifles in the US, as they are banned in most (if not all) states for civilian use. Even if 70 million Americans own guns, the vast majority of those are 9mm pistols. They placed these orders for big weapons on the black market, which raises eyebrows whether the buyers are muslim or not. "

 

My response: I am not an ignorant man. It is a common practice for Americans to buy assault rifles or assault weapons (AW) in the US.

 

The Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) was a provision of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, a federal law of the United States that included a prohibition on the sale of semi-automatic "assault weapons" manufactured after the date of the ban's enactment. The ten-year ban was passed by Congress on September 13, 1994 and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton the same day. The ban expired on September 13, 2004, as part of the law's sunset provision.

 

On March 2, 2004, with 'sunset' of the ban on the horizon, assault weapon ban supporter Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) attached a ten-year extension to the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban to the Senate's Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. With the Feinstein amendment, the bill was voted down 8-90. The expiration came in 2004 and Americans are allowed to buy assault rifles.

 

Since 1991 (three years before the ban), the nation`s violent crime rate has decreased every year, 35% overall, to a 27-year low, according to the FBI. According to federal crime victim surveys, violent crime is at a 30-year low. Meanwhile, the number of privately-owned guns, including hundreds of thousands of assault weapons (AWs) and nearly identical guns has risen by more than 60 million. The number of "large" magazines has risen by 50 million since 1994.18 Today, there are more guns (including more AWs) and "large" magazines than ever."

 

Reference:

15. Crimes reported to police (######bjsdata.ojp.usdoj.gov/dataonline/Search/Crime/Crime.cfm and ######fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm).

16. Bureau of Justice Statistics, "Criminal Victimization 2002" (######ojp.usdoj.gov./bjs/abstract/cv02.htm).

17. BATFE, Firearms Commerce in the United States, 2001/2002 (######atf.gov/pub/fire-explo_pub/firearms

commerce/index.htm).

18. "Schumer Moves to Renew Federal Ban on Assault Weapons," May 8, 2003 (######senate.gov/~schumer/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Federal Bureau of Entrapment: Orchestrating Terrorism

 

Paul Craig Roberts | June 7 2005

(Source: ######prisonplanet###### )

 

The US has a vast and very expensive Homeland Security bureaucracy with nothing to do. There hasn't been a terrorist attack in America since 2001.

 

There have been a vast quantity of terror alerts, the purpose of which was to scare Americans into supporting an unnecessary and illegal aggressive attack on Iraq.

 

As very few, if any, real terrorists have turned up, the FBI has resorted to creating terrorists by soliciting Muslim-Americans and appealing to them with schemes to aid "jihadists." Recently, two American citizens were caught in a FBI sting. One, an Ivy-League educated physician, is charged with agreeing to provide medical care to wounded holy warriors in Saudi Arabia. The other, a famous jazz musician, is charged with agreeing to train jihadists in martial arts.

 

According to the Washington Times (June 1) the FBI began its sting in 2003, so it took two years of work and cajoling to manufacture the case against these two Americans.

 

What the FBI has done to Dr. R.A. Sabir and to Tarik Shah was once known as entrapment. Judges would throw out entrapment cases, because crime was believed to require intent to commit a crime. If the intent was given to the accused by the police through enticement or threats, it was not regarded as criminal intent on the accused person's part.

 

Unfortunately, "law and order" conservatives used fear of crime to "give our police more effective measures to clear criminals off our streets" and managed to eliminate the entrapment defense.

 

Some years ago the FBI, posing as Arab oil sheiks, entrapped US Representatives in a sting operation.

 

The FBI handed out large bundles of cash to Congressmen who accepted the offer to represent the fake sheiks' interests. Film footage of the Congressmen stuffing their pockets with money was all the FBI needed to convict the members. The fact that campaign contributions come from interest groups that expect to be represented did not count in the stung US Representatives' favor.

 

Note that the two latest victims, Sabir and Tarik, could not have offered their services to jihadists, because no jihadists were present. Note also that Sabir and Tarik are not accused of actually performing an act of service. Sabir and Tarik had no contact with real jihadists, and they committed no act of service to jihadists. Yet, both face $250,000 fines and 15 years in prison.

 

All that happened was that two productive American citizens were deceived by government agents for no other purpose than those agents having to show "results" in the "war on terror."

 

How does it make us safer to put a medical doctor and a jazz musician in prison? Why did the FBI spend two years entrapping these two American citizens?

 

Both men have wives and children. Suppose both men agreed to provide some service to jihadists. (We don't know that they did. We only have the FBI's word for it, a word that is not worth much.) The reason could easily be fear of reprisals.

 

Suppose you are a Muslim-American and FBI agents misrepresenting themselves as dangerous jihadists demanded services of you? Neither of the accused agreed to participate in a terrorist act: no bombs, no shootings, no hijackings. A doctor agreed to keep his Hippocratic oath if presented with wounded people in Saudi Arabia. A jazz musician agreed to teach martial arts. When was the last time a terrorist attacked with judo or karate?

 

Many years ago there was a movie about a British medical doctor who treated a man wounded in an act of rebellion against England. The English judge, portrayed in the movie as unjust in the extreme, ruled that being humane was tantamount to being a rebel and the doctor was sold into slavery to the Spanish. Unless memory fails, the movie was "Capital Blood" with Errol Flynn.

 

In the movie, the doctor did actually treat the wounded man. The charge against Dr. Sabir is that he agreed to treat a wounded man if presented with one in Saudi Arabia in the future. There is no way of knowing if he would have done so. But if the US is prepared to deny medical treatment to its opponents, why does anyone doubt the torture stories?

 

The FBI is so desperate to capture a terrorist that it spent two years setting up a doctor on this specious charge.

 

Like the police who find it easier to frame people than to convict them on the evidence, the FBI will find it easier to manufacture "terrorists" with entrapment than to catch real terrorists.

Get Alex Jones and Paul Joseph Watson's books, ALL Alex's documentary films, films by other authors, audio interviews and special reports. Sign up at Prison Planet.tv - CLICK HERE.E MAIL THIS PAGE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×