portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article commentary portland metro

anti-racism | human & civil rights

FBI Set-Up at Pioneer Square.

FBI "thwarts" it's own so-called bomb plot at Pioneer Square on Friday Nov. 26th. All major & even some [apparently liberal] news outlets pass off this bullshit as an actual event. Predictably, the dopes (e.i. general public) all fall for it, hook/line/sinker. Get ready for MORE security, MORE police, MORE surveillance, & MORE lenses watching your every move.
All these "thwarted bomb plots" are starting to become a real cliché. Some harmless 19 year old no-body with a clean record, brown skin, & two Mohamuds in his name gets fingered by the FBI informant goons in 2009. Over the next year or so, federal goons pretend to be this guy's friend, leaning on him, spoon-feeding him all sorts of phony baloney about carrying out some attack that he NEVER originally had any intention of carrying out. They give him all this material that he never would've had access to, or even the slightest clue of where to get it. They spend a year setting up & totally ENTRAPPING this guy, who in the beginning never EVER had a great sceme to carry out anything, maybe other than attending college. At one point, Mohamud Osmond Mohamud was planning to head to Alaska for a seasonal fishery job (which seems really unusual for a "hardened terrorist"). However, the fed. goons stopped him from going because how could he have carried out some fake bombing here in Portland if he was slinging fish in Alaska, right?

The "plot" was eventually "uncovered" & predictably, all the thought-less dopes swallow the LIES. Typically, all media outlets including The Oregonian, NPR/OPB, & even most of so-called "progressive" talk radio (locally at least) has been hashing out this one-sided propaganda about how Mohamud Osmond Mohamud was some eeeeeeevil jihadist & how the FBI did it's "due diligence".

Which is all total bullshit, of course. But who cares, right?

Local/area muslims are once again scape-goated & forced into defending themselves against something they had NOTHING to do with (funny how, when ever a CHRISTIAN actually CARRIES OUT a ruthless act of terror, the christian community isn't made to account for anything). Like clockwork (no really, you could literally set your watch to it), the first wave of vigilante attacks goes under way, starting with an arson attack at a mosque in Corvallis - apparently the one the FBI's patsy once attended. A $10,000 reward has been offered for info. lending to the arrest of the suspect. This reward will never be collected of course, because the police aren't looking. Expect to see a spike in hate crimes in the metro area over the next several weeks. This may include everything from [other] mosques being vandalized, to assaults on anyone wearing a headscarf, to increased police harassment of anyone who looks like they could possibly be muslim. We have this on-going cesspool of racist, anti-muslim hysteria to thank for this. And yeah, it will totally get worse incase you were wondering. Portland's "livingroom" already has armed patrols, unarmed security, & dozens of electronic lenses trained upon it. Expect more of all that. The Dept. of Däs Fatherland Security has been wanting a major cash influx for their local branch, & now they have it. They win, WE lose.

Only in this country could you have this weird mix of fo' holiday cheer, ravenous consumption, xenophobia, & heightened security/fear - all meshed together to form this continuous national psychosis. And it's not going to let up anytime soon because we've entered the age of "failed plots" & "thwarted attacks" & ever-increasing security & ballooning defense/police budgets. Mark my words, a few months from now or sooner there's going to be yet another "foiled plot" to blow up something. And once again the scared dummies all will be whipped up into thinking there's a jihadist lurking around every corner, just waiting to get them. More people have died in CROSSWALKS in Portland last year than have been killed in terrorists attacks nationally! More people die from dog bites, but try telling that to anyone.

Fuck corporate media 29.Nov.2010 12:11

Karma Lita

Dead on Damos.
Odds of Dying in a Terrorist Attack


After 9/11, the fear of another attack on U.S. soil cleanly supplanted the fear of having one's penis chopped off by a vengeful lover in the pantheon of irrational American fears. While we're constantly being told that another attack is imminent and that radical Islamic fundamentalists are two steps away from establishing a caliphate in Branson, Missouri, just how close are they? How do the odds of dying in a terrorist attack stack up against the odds of dying in other unfortunate situations? Well, let's take a look.

The following ratios were compiled using data from 2004 National Safety Council (NSC) Estimates, a report based on data from The National Center for Health Statistics and the U.S. Census Bureau. In addition, 2003 mortality data from the Center for Disease Control (CDC) was used.

You are 13 times more likely to die in a railway accident than from a terrorist attack

You are 12,571 times more likely to die from cancer than from a terrorist attack

You are six times more likely to die from hot weather than from a terrorist attack

You are eight times more likely to die from accidental electrocution than from a terrorist attack

You are 11,000 times more likely to die in an airplane accident than from a terrorist plot involving an airplane

You are 87 times more likely to drown than die in a terrorist attack

You are 404 times more likely to die in a fall than from a terrorist attack

You are 17,600 times more likely to die from heart disease than from a terrorist attack

You are 1048 times more likely to die from a car accident than from a terrorist attack

You are 12 times more likely to die from accidental suffocation in bed than from a terrorist attack

You are nine times more likely to choke to death on your own vomit than die in a terrorist attack

You are eight times more likely to be killed by a police officer than by a terrorist

great documentary 29.Nov.2010 21:19

JR

Here's a great recent documentary from Democracy Now about the FBI entrapment cases involving "terror" suspects. Strong stomach required to watch.



 http://www.democracynow.org/2010/10/6/entrapment_or_foiling_terror_fbis_reliance

The FBI successfully thwarts its own Terrorist plot 29.Nov.2010 23:38

Glenn Greenwald

The FBI is obviously quite pleased with itself over its arrest of a 19-year-old Somali-American, Mohamed Osman Mohamud, who -- with months of encouragement, support and money from the FBI's own undercover agents -- allegedly attempted to detonate a bomb at a crowded Christmas event in Portland, Oregon. Media accounts are almost uniformly trumpeting this event exactly as the FBI describes it. Loyalists of both parties are doing the same, with Democratic Party commentators proclaiming that this proves how great and effective Democrats are at stopping The Evil Terrorists, while right-wing polemicists point to this arrest as yet more proof that those menacing Muslims sure are violent and dangerous.

What's missing from all of these celebrations is an iota of questioning or skepticism. All of the information about this episode -- all of it -- comes exclusively from an FBI affidavit filed in connection with a Criminal Complaint against Mohamud. As shocking and upsetting as this may be to some, FBI claims are sometimes one-sided, unreliable and even untrue, especially when such claims -- as here -- are uncorroborated and unexamined. That's why we have what we call "trials" before assuming guilt or even before believing that we know what happened: because the government doesn't always tell the complete truth, because they often skew reality, because things often look much different once the accused is permitted to present his own facts and subject the government's claims to scrutiny. The FBI affidavit -- as well as whatever its agents are whispering into the ears of reporters -- contains only those facts the FBI chose to include, but omits the ones it chose to exclude. And even the "facts" that are included are merely assertions at this point and thus may not be facts at all.

It may very well be that the FBI successfully and within legal limits arrested a dangerous criminal intent on carrying out a serious Terrorist plot that would have killed many innocent people, in which case they deserve praise. Court-approved surveillance and use of undercover agents to infiltrate terrorist plots are legitimate tactics when used in accordance with the law.

But it may also just as easily be the case that the FBI -- as they've done many times in the past -- found some very young, impressionable, disaffected, hapless, aimless, inept loner; created a plot it then persuaded/manipulated/entrapped him to join, essentially turning him into a Terrorist; and then patted itself on the back once it arrested him for having thwarted a "Terrorist plot" which, from start to finish, was entirely the FBI's own concoction. Having stopped a plot which it itself manufactured, the FBI then publicly touts -- and an uncritical media amplifies -- its "success" to the world, thus proving both that domestic Terrorism from Muslims is a serious threat and the Government's vast surveillance powers -- current and future new ones -- are necessary.

There are numerous claims here that merit further scrutiny and questioning. First, the FBI was monitoring the email communications of this American citizen on U.S. soil for months (at least) with what appears to be the flimsiest basis: namely, that he was in email communication with someone in Northwest Pakistan, "an area known to harbor terrorists" (para. 5 of the FBI Affidavit). Is that enough to obtain court approval to eavesdrop on someone's calls and emails? I'm glad the FBI is only eavesdropping with court approval, if that's true, but certainly more should be required for judicial authorization than that. Communicating with someone in Northwest Pakistan is hardly reasonable grounds for suspicion.

Second, in order not to be found to have entrapped someone into committing a crime, law enforcement agents want to be able to prove that, in the 1992 words of the Supreme Court, the accused was "was independently predisposed to commit the crime for which he was arrested." To prove that, undercover agents are often careful to stress that the accused has multiple choices, and they then induce him into choosing with his own volition to commit the crime. In this case, that was achieved by the undercover FBI agent's allegedly advising Mohamud that there were at least five ways he could serve the cause of Islam (including by praying, studying engineering, raising funds to send overseas, or becoming "operational"), and Mohamud replied he wanted to "be operational" by using exploding a bomb (para. 35-37).

But strangely, while all other conversations with Mohamud which the FBI summarizes were (according to the affidavit) recorded by numerous recording devices, this conversation -- the crucial one for negating Mohamud's entrapment defense -- was not. That's because, according to the FBI, the undercover agent "was equipped with audio equipment to record the meeting. However, due to technical problems, the meeting was not recorded" (para. 37).

Thus, we have only the FBI's word, and only its version, for what was said during this crucial -- potentially dispositive -- conversation. Also strangely: the original New York Times article on this story described this conversation at some length and reported the fact that "that meeting was not recorded due to a technical difficulty," but the final version omitted that, instead simply repeating the FBI's story as though it were fact: "undercover agents in Mr. Mohamud's case offered him several nonfatal ways to serve his cause, including mere prayer. But he told the agents he wanted to be 'operational,' and perhaps execute a car bombing."

Third, there are ample facts that call into question whether Mohamud's actions were driven by the FBI's manipulation and pressure rather than his own predisposition to commit a crime. In June, he attempted to fly to Alaska in order to work on a fishing job he obtained through a friend, but he was on the Government's no-fly list. That caused the FBI to question him at the airport and then bar him from flying to Alaska, and thus prevented him from earning income with this job (para. 25). Having prevented him from working, the money the FBI then pumped him with -- including almost $3,000 in cash for him to rent his own apartment (para. 61) -- surely helped make him receptive to their suggestions and influence. And every other step taken to perpetrate this plot -- from planning its placement to assembling the materials to constructing the bomb -- was all done at the FBI's behest and with its indispensable support and direction.

It's impossible to conceive of Mohamud having achieved anything on his own. Before being ensnared by the FBI, the only tangible action he had taken was to write three articles on "fitness and jihad" for the online magazine Jihad Recollections. At least based on what is known, he had no history of violence, no apparent criminal record, had never been to a training camp in Afghanistan, Pakistan or anywhere else, and -- before meeting the FBI -- had never taken a single step toward harming anyone. Does that sound like some menacing sleeper Terrorist to you?

Finally, there is, as usual, no discussion whatsoever in media accounts of motive. There are several statements attributed to Mohamud by the Affidavit that should be repellent to any decent person, including complete apathy -- even delight -- at the prospect that this bomb would kill innocent people, including children. What would drive a 19-year-old American citizen -- living in the U.S. since the age of 3 -- to that level of sociopathic indifference? He explained it himself in several passages quoted by the FBI, and -- if it weren't for the virtual media blackout of this issue -- this line of reasoning would be extremely familiar to Americans by now (para. 45):
Undercover FBI Agent: You know there's gonna be a lot of children there?
Mohamud: Yeah, I know, that's what I'm looking for.

Undercover FBI Agent: For kids?

Mohamud: No, just for, in general a huge mass that will, like for them you know to be attacked in their own element with their families celebrating the holidays. And then for later to be saying, this was them for you to refrain from killing our children, women . . . . so when they hear all these families were killed in such a city, they'll say you know what your actions, you know they will stop, you know. And it's not fair that they should do that to people and not feeling it.
And here's what he allegedly said in a video he made shortly before he thought he would be detonating the bomb (para. 80):

We hear the same exact thing over and over and over from accused Terrorists -- that they are attempting to carry about plots in retaliation for past and ongoing American violence against Muslim civilians and to deter such future acts. Here we find one of the great mysteries in American political culture: that the U.S. Government dispatches its military all over the world -- invading, occupying, and bombing multiple Muslim countries -- torturing them, imprisoning them without charges, shooting them up at checkpoints, sending remote-controlled drones to explode their homes, imposing sanctions that starve hundreds of thousands of children to death -- and Americans are then baffled when some Muslims -- an amazingly small percentage -- harbor anger and vengeance at them and want to return the violence. And here we also find the greatest myth in American political discourse: that engaging in all of that military aggression somehow constitutes Staying Safe and combating Terrorism -- rather than doing more than any single other cause to provoke, sustain and fuel Terrorism.

Innocent 30.Nov.2010 12:58

Damos Abadon

All i have to say...

Portland Police opted out of Joint Terrorism Task Force 01.Dec.2010 10:57

repost by Kim Sky

Quote: One interesting element of the Mohamud case is that it has been revealed the Portland police were purposefully kept in the dark over the FBI operation, most likely because the city had opted out of the Joint Terrorism Task Force, a policing operation that subsumes within its broad parameters all federal, state, and local policing agencies. Portland Mayor Sam Adams has already indicated Portland will consider reentering the Task Force.

Portland teen ensnared in FBI sting operation pleads not guilty
 http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/dec2010/fede-d01.shtml

Adams cops to police-state 01.Dec.2010 13:59

Damos Abadon koldphraust@hotmail.com

Listening to Mike Malloy last night, he indeed brought up this joint terrorism task force that Portland opted out of several years ago.

Now, Mayor Adams is considering joining said task force, in light of recent & [very convenient] events.

 link to www.npr.org

terrorists 02.Dec.2010 14:26

Ecotopian Yeti

And are the Woodburn bombers who killed to police officers and who are white Christians counted are "terrorists?"

So I think to be a "terrorist" you have to be either a muslim, dark skin or an environmentalist.

As for Mohamud Osmond Mohamud .. yes he was entrapped (set up), but still guilty in his conspiring with the FBI to commit mass murder. He should be behind bars awaiting a fair trial and so too should the FBI operatives be behind bars awaiting a fair trial!

Big question now should be will Sam Adam bow down to the Fascists and money while betraying the civil rights of Portlanders?

Okay, okay... 03.Dec.2010 00:45

JohnnyNoBueno

We can sit around and talk about it all we want. Then tomorrow, the feral government is going to take up one more poor hapless dolt, and pay him thousands of dollars to blow up something, and we will be talking still about this man, and many more, who have been through the same programming. All that is really happening is that we continue to add names to the list. What are we going to do about it? Where is the solidarity for a vilified Muslim community? WHO'S NEXT?

The Portland "Bomb" Plot Fabricating Terror 03.Dec.2010 19:28

repost

The Portland "Bomb" Plot


Fabricating Terror

By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS

Why does the FBI orchestrate fake terror plots?

The latest one snared Osman Mohamud, a Somali-American teenager in Portland, Oregon. The Associated Press report by William Mall and Nedra Pickler (11-27-10) is headlined in Yahoo News: ?Somali-born teen plotted car-bombing in Oregon.?

This is a misleading headline as the report makes it clear that it was a plot orchestrated by federal agents. Two sentences into the news report we have this: ?The bomb was an elaborate fake supplied by the [FBI] agents and the public was never in danger, authorities said.? The teenager was supplied with a fake bomb and a fake detonator.

Three sentences later the reporters contradict the quoted authorities with a quote from Arthur Balizan, special agent in charge of the FBI in Oregon: ?The threat was very real.?

The reporters then contradict Balizan: ?White House spokesman Nick Shapiro said Saturday that president Barack Obama was aware of the FBI operation before Friday?s arrest. Shapiro said Obama was assured that the FBI was in full control of the operation and that the public was not in danger.?

Then Shapiro contradicts himself by declaring: ?The events of the past 24 hours underscore the necessity of remaining vigilant against terrorism here and abroad.?

The story arrives at its Kafka-esque highpoint when President Obama thanks the FBI for its diligence in saving us from the fake plot the FBI had fabricated.

After vacillating between whether they are reporting a real plot or a orchestrated one, the reporters finally come down on the side of orchestration. Documents released by US Attorney Dwight Holton ?show the sting operation began in June.? Obviously, the targeted Portland teenager was not hot to trot. The FBI had to work on him for six months. The reporters compare ?the Portland sting? to the recent arrest in Virginia of Faroque Ahmed who was ensnared in a ?bombing plot that was a ruse conducted over the past six months by federal officials.?

Think about this. The FBI did a year?s work in order to convince two people to participate in fake plots.

If you are not too bright and some tough looking guys accost you and tell you that they are Al Qaeda and expect your help in a terrorist operation, you might be afraid to say no, or you might be thrilled to be part of a blowback against an American population that is indifferent to their government?s slaughter of people of your ethnicity in your country of origin. Whichever way it falls, it is unlikely the ensnared person would ever have done anything beyond talk had the FBI not organized them into action. In other cases the FBI entices people with money to participate in its fake plots.

Since 9/11, the only domestic ?terrorist plot? that I recall that was not obviously organized by the FBI is the ?Times Square plot? to which Faisal Shahzad pleaded guilty to trying to set off a car bomb in Manhattan. This plot, too, is suspicious. One would think that a real terrorist would have a real bomb, not a smoke bomb.

In the May 19, 2009, online site, sott.net (reprinted Nov. 27, 2010), Joe Quinn collects some of the fake plots, some of which were validated by torture confessions and others by ignorant and fearful juries. The US government comes up with a plot, an accused, and tortures him until he confesses, or the government fabricates a case and takes it to jurors who know that they cannot face their neighbors if they let off a media-declared ?terrorist.?

Perhaps the most obvious of these cases is ?the Miami seven,? a hapless group of Christian-Zionist-Muslims that called themselves the ?Sea of David? and were quietly living in a Florida warehouse awaiting biblical end times. Along came the FBI posing as Al Qaeda and offered them $50,000 and an Al Qaeda swearing in ceremony.

The FBI told them that they needed to blow up the Sears Tower in Chicago and various government buildings. An honest reporter at Knight Ridder revealed: ?The Justice (sic) Department unveiled the arrests with an orchestrated series of news conferences in two cities, but the severity of the charges compared with the seemingly amateurish nature of the group raised concerns among civil libertarians,? who noted that the group had ?no weapons, no explosives.?

The Justice (sic) Department and tamed media made a big show out of the ?militaristic boots? worn by the hapless ?plotters,? but the FBI had bought the boots for them.

The biggest piece of evidence against the hapless group was that they had taken photos of ?targets? in Florida, but the US government had equipped them with cameras.

The US government even rented cars for its dupes to drive to take the pictures.

It turns out that the group only wanted the $50,000, but an American jury convicted them anyhow.

When the US government has to go to such lengths to create ?terrorists? out of hapless people, an undeclared agenda is being served. What could this agenda be?

The answer is many agendas. One agenda is to justify wars of aggression that are war crimes under the Nuremberg standard created by the US government itself. One way to avoid war crimes charges is to create acts of terrorism that justify the naked aggressions against ?terrorist countries.?

Another agenda is to create a police state. A police state can control people who object to their impoverishment for the benefit of the superrich much more easily than can a democracy endowed with constitutional civil liberties.

Another agenda is to get rich. Terror plots, whether real or orchestrated, have created a market for security. Dual Israeli citizen Michael Chertoff, former head of US Homeland Security, is the lobbyist who represents Rapiscan, the company that manufactures the full body porno-scanners that, following the ?underwear bomber? event, are now filling up US airports. Homeland Security has announced that they are going to purchase the porno-scanners for trains, buses, subways, court houses, and sports events. How can shopping malls and roads escape? Recently on Interstate 20 west of Atlanta, trucks had to drive through a similar device. Everyone has forgotten that the underwear bomber lacked required documents and was escorted aboard the airliner by an official.

The ?war on terror? provides an opportunity for a few well-connected people to become very rich. If they leave Americans with a third world police state, they will be living it up in Gstaad.

This despite the fact that everyone on the planet knows that it is not lactating mothers, children, elderly people in walkers and wheelchairs, members of Congress, members of the military, nuns, and so on, who are members of Al Qaeda plotting to bring aboard a bomb in their underwear, their shoes, their shampoo and face creams.

Indeed, bombs aboard air liners are a rare event.

What is it really all about? Could it be that the US government needs terrorist events in order to completely destroy the US Constitution? On November 24, National Public Radio broadcast a report by Dina Temple-Raston: ?Administration officials are looking at the possibility of codifying detention without trial and are awaiting legislation that is supposed to come out of Congress early next year.? Of course, the legislation will not come out of Congress. It will be written by Homeland Security and the Justice (sic) Department. The impotent Congress will merely rubber-stamp it.

The obliteration of habeas corpus, the most necessary and important protection of liberty ever institutionalized in law and governing constitution, has become necessary for the US government, because a jury might acquit an alleged or mock ?terrorist? or framed person whom the US government has declared prior to the trial will be held forever in indefinite detention even if acquitted in a US court of law. The attorney general of the United States has declared that any ?terrorist? that he puts on trial who is acquitted by a jury will remain in detention regardless of the verdict. Such an event would reveal the total lawlessness of American ?justice.?

The United States of America, ?the city upon the hill,? ?the light unto the world,? has become Nazi Germany. It was the practice of the Gestapo to ignore court verdicts and to execute or hold indefinitely the cleared defendant in the camps. The Obama regime is in the process of completing Dick Cheney?s dream by legislating the legality of indefinite detention. American law has collapsed to the dungeons of the Dark Ages.

This Nazi Gestapo policy is now the declared policy of the US Department of Justice (sic). Anyone who thinks the United States is a free society where people have liberty, ?freedom and democracy? is uninformed.

Paul Craig Roberts was an editor of the Wall Street Journal and an Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Treasury. His latest book, HOW THE ECONOMY WAS LOST, has just been published by CounterPunch/AK Press. He can be reached at:  PaulCraigRoberts@yahoo.com

Question of Competency 05.Dec.2010 13:36

humble opinion

The FBI has a history of picking on people of questionable mental competency to do their bidding in various entrapment schemes. Doing the bidding of law officers involved in an entrapment scheme does not automatically constitute a crime - suggest disbelievers spend some time in a law library. When law officers ask someone to perpetrate a crime in an entrapment scheme, a fundamental conflict of interest arises: the victim of the entrapment scheme may (knowingly or unknowingly) feel compelled to follow the directives of law enforcement authorities. This problem becomes compounded in people of limited mental capacity, who may sense they are dealing with authority figures, but lack the mental capability for executive decision making. This is also a problem that occurs with underage minors who have not yet had enough life experience to make executive decisions. The tendency is to go along with the authority figure, trusting that everything will turn out alright. This is why entrapment schemes constitute such a dangerous, immoral, and unethical law enforcement device. This is why an ethical, honest justice system will tend to throw entrapment cases out of court.

Authority's brag on audio death threats 10.Dec.2010 18:54

Terry Wagar

Authority's gave me a audio death threat their threatening to kill me and other family members if I don't do what they want!

I also have them on video backing that threat up but it is too long to put on here!

All attempts to upload that video to youtube fails!

Here is a copy of that audio death threat, I reformatted it so it will play, it was originally a mpg format, why? because they had a x rated picture that would show while the audio played!

I'm not uploading that picture!

I have video of the makers of this audio death threat on video going upstairs to the apartment above my apartment I will try to upload that!
Authoritys that made the death threat caught waiting for my daughter
Authoritys that made the death threat caught waiting for my daughter
Authoritys that were blackmailing and framing me
Authoritys that were blackmailing and framing me
Authoritys audio death threat
Authoritys audio death threat