The FBI informant and the Bronx bomb plot: Village Voice

The new issue of the 'Village Voice' (July 7) features an article by Graham Rayman on the recent Bronx bomb plot, focusing on what has been learned (in the weeks since the arrest of the 'Newburgh 4' in late May) regarding the role of the FBI's informant.

Full article is here:


Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Police Commissioner Ray Kelly held press conferences at the synagogues to reassure New Yorkers about their safety. During Kelly's remarks, it was startling to hear the commissioner refer to al-Qaeda by name, if only to say that the four purported home-grown terrorists had no ties to Osama Bin Laden's organization.

As more details emerged, however, the less the four defendants sounded like men with the skills to plan a sophisticated terror plot. They were small-time crooks, felons with long criminal records whose previous activities revolved around smoking marijuana and playing video games. One defendant, Laguerre Payen, was arrested in a crack house surrounded by bottles of his own urine; his lawyer describes him as "mildly retarded."

It seemed fairly astounding that, for a full calendar year, such a group could remain interested in and plan anything more complex than a backyard barbecue, let alone a multipronged paramilitary assault, as the indictment against them alleged.

But what the indictment didn't say, and what the initial news reports didn't fill in, was the extent to which the fifth man in the plot, an unnamed FBI informant, had provided the glue to hold the Newburgh 4 together....

This FBI scam has been going on since

at least the 1993 bombing, and probably before. There have been no real domestic "terrorism" cases that have not been instigated by an FBI informant. What amazes me is that the writers of the Voice article don't draw the logical conclusion that all of the so-called terrorism cases over the past 20 years have been sting type affairs, in which the FBI was heavily involved. The real question, of course, is why Moslems have been targeted..

My take on your last question is

My take on your last question is that Muslims have been targeted because many of them live in countries that have the majority of the remaining oil reserves that "we" so desperately want to get our hands on that our government is willing to murder it's own citizens as a casus belli for conquering their land and desired natural resources. History is replete with such behavior.

"A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves" – Edward R. Murrow

Can't disagree; Even so....

Yes, they should have begun to realize the dots connecting all these cases well before now. Yet I still find reports such as this to be very valuable. Even if they might only be dealing with one particular case, they help to show the architecture, or anatomy, you might say, of false-flag terror...a kind of x-ray of the modus operandi or the real perps. People involved in the cause of 9/11 truth are aware of this m.o., but when arguing with others, it's important to be able to go beyond generalities and point to specifics of particular cases. The more of these we have at our disposal, the better, as far as I'm concerned.

One thing which I found the article did especially well is to demonstrate (by means of the case in Albany in 2004) the extent to which these informants--and ultimately the prosecutors who back them up--will go when it comes to distorting or outright fabricating statements attributed to their targets, in order to portray them as the America-hating Islamist bogeymen which this society has been indoctrinated to fear and loathe above everything else. I think such examples are important because, even when believers in the OCT have the role of informants in creating such events pointed out to them, they continue to be presented with 'evidence' through the media that purports to show these terror suspects as harboring a destructive, religously-based hatred toward Americans. Thus it's difficult for many people to see the alleged perps in ANY kind of sympathetic light, and easier for them to rationalize that, even if they were duped by government informants, it's probably just as well that people with such attitudes be taken into custody some time, lest they figure out a way to do some actual harm on their own (that is, minus any government instigators) somewhere down the road. And rationalizing in this way, they can also put off for a little longer having to grapple with the full implications of what's come out regarding their own government's role in actually creating these incidents.

When encountering this kind of resistance, we can express our skepticism towards such media reports and the authorities' 'evidence' on which they are supposedly based. But--on this topic as with everything else 9/11 truth-related--it's much better when we're able to document with facts that our skepticism isn't just a matter of bias or prejudice, but has a truly solid foundation. Yes, we have much at our disposal already; but I think this article provides some more examples that are good to know.