Terrorism: It Could Be Anyone Now

This weekend I ran across a random copy of The Wall Street Journal and decided to see what passes for mainstream news these days. Reading it reminded me of the striking amount of terrorism propaganda being foisted upon the U.S. public. The numerous terrorism-related stories in that weekend edition of The Journal painted a confused and contradictory picture that reflects a difficulty in keeping the American public focused on terrorist threats and increasingly suspicious of their fellow citizens.

The weekend edition included five major stories about terrorism, including a shooting at a Colorado high school, the release of video from a hospital massacre in Yemen, and a review of how the Sandy Hook victims’ families are coping. In the most prominent spot, at the top left of the front page, readers found an alert for a major expose covering the Boston bombers. The fifth story was about the arrest of a Wichita man for plotting to blow up aircraft with a homemade bomb at the airport.

The new, Wichita story provides a good example of the challenges facing the FBI and corporate media in ongoing efforts to stoke the public fear. The suspect, like others in the last few years, had no previous history of terrorist activity and the FBI did everything for him.

LaneTerry Lee Loewen was an avionics specialist at a private company working at the Mid-Continent Airport in Wichita. Allegedly, he tried to drive his car, loaded with explosives that the FBI had helped him make, onto the tarmac to cause “maximum carnage and death.” This man, whom neighbors called quiet and “normal” was supposedly working for al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.

The emerging story of Loewen includes a significant number of contradictory reports and unbelievable aspects. The official account is that Loewen decided to become a Muslim about six months ago and he immediately began devoting all his time to preparations for becoming a “lone wolf” suicide bomber. FBI-produced documents allegedly provide this 58-year old white man’s reasoning for his radical change of life course—“My only explanation is that I believe in jihad for the sake of Allah + for the sake of my Muslim brothers + sisters.”

Although Loewen did not enter a plea and his public defender and current wife would not comment, his ex-wife and son were contacted for interviews and neither of them had any idea about his new commitment to jihad and martyrdom. The son had spoken to his father in the last month yet, according to The Journal, “didn’t detect anything amiss” and “didn’t know about any turn toward Islam by his father.”

Although Loewen is being portrayed as a serious, jihadist Muslim, he had no known connection to any Muslim organization in Wichita or elsewhere. Apparently he was only an online Muslim and the FBI caught him making comments about his desire to wage jihad against his own country on behalf of the members of his new faith.

His neighbors couldn’t believe it and never saw anything suspicious about him or his current wife. And although his own son had no idea about it, and his ex-wife would never have predicted it, in his last six months he must have devoted every spare moment to his new mission. One might think that a new convert would take time to learn about his new religion and interact with at least one or two Muslims in his community. After all, doesn’t becoming a Muslim require more than just making a few online comments?

Not for Loewen, according to the FBI. Instead, one day he was just a solitary, radical Muslim and he immediately began spending all his free time “studying subjects like jihad, martyrdom operations, and Sharia law.” He also “studied the airport layout and took photos of access points, researched flight schedules and acquired components to make car bombs.” He was obviously very busy and totally committed.

FOX News reported that Loewen was inspired by Usama bin Laden. Investigators from the Wichita Joint Terrorism Task Force further claimed that Loewen “frequently expressed admiration for Anwar Al-Awlaki.” Republican Senator Jerry Moran of Kansas said that Loewen’s action reminded us that we must “reaffirm our commitment” to the War on Terror.

There are certainly suspicious things about Loewen. For one thing, he had another name—Terry L. Lane. How many readers of The Wall Street Journal just happen to have other names?  And Loewen was cited in 2009 for a “a concealed-carry violation at the airport.”

Nonetheless, according to his ex-wife of 10-years, Loewen/Lane was “peaceful, easy-going, quiet man” who “didn’t like confrontation; he was never one to start a fight.” She said he had left his job at Hawker Beechcraft Air Services for a time, to work at Learjet across town. She didn’t know when he returned to Beechcraft. “He was happy. He was a normal human being,” she said. And although The Journal reported that the son had no idea about Loewen’s conversion to Islam, The Wichita Eagle reported that the son told his mother that Loewen had recently become a Muslim.

Other news sources report that the son said his dad was “always really calm and a loving man” and that he “had no idea how his father came to be the main suspect in a foiled terror plot.”

Therefore the news about Loewen/Lane and this alleged new terrorist plot includes many confusing reports and makes little or no sense. A 58-year old man with no connection to any Muslim organization just decided on his own to give up his entire life to become a jihadist. He forsook all other commitments to make a martyr of himself for the benefit of “brothers and sisters” who he had never met. His family and neighbors apparently knew nothing about it.

If we can learn anything from the incident it is that the next terrorist could be anybody—you, your father, your neighbor—anyone at all. And there won’t necessarily be any signs at all other than what the FBI provides about internet activity.

This brings us to the big expose that The Journal published on the Boston bombers. Readers might wonder about the coincidence of the reporter from The Journal just happening to be a relatively close friend of the Tsarnaev family, whose two sons were accused of the marathon attack. Ostensibly, that relationship was initiated because both the report and the family spoke Russian and the reporter was doing research on Chechens and the “Russia’s Islamist insurgency.”  But the friendship was clearly much more than that. Who could have predicted that chance relationship would come in so handy for a terrorism reporter from a major U.S. news source?

Anyway, the story about the Tsarnaevs presents more contradictions. For instance, the mother of the accused bombers is portrayed quite differently than we have seen before. The woman who suddenly became a terrorist suspect herself a week after she began claiming that her sons were controlled by the FBI has most often been seen as a strict Muslim woman dressed in very traditional garb. In The Journal’s new story, however, she is “a wide-eyed rapid talker with a low-cut dress and high heels who waved her arms and teased her black hair like the pop singer Cyndi Lauper.” And she ran a business on the side giving facials.

In this new light, mother Tsarnaev could be an office girl from Jersey, or the girl next door.

But those who read the whole story realize that there is a bigger purpose behind this spread on the Tsarnaevs and it is not to describe their dress habits. It is, in fact, to reveal that the Boston bombers were conspiracy theorists. Specifically, Tamerlan Tsarnaev and his brother were “filled with thoughts of conspiracy” including that “the Sept.11 attacks were organized by shadowy financial elites.”

We have seen this tactic before with other terrorism stories but never this blatantly. We are being told that not only can anyone be a terrorist, but it is more likely that anyone who questions the official accounts of terrorism is more likely to be a terrorist. How convenient for the military-terrorism-industrial complex. If such an approach takes hold in the minds of fearful citizens, there would be no stopping the architects of the War on Terror and no shortage of suspects to keep the whole thing rolling along.


Thanks Kevin

One thing we've learned, I think, is that the expansion and self preservation instincts of the current power structure are intact.

The military-industrial-financial-security-political-media complex is both aggressive and entrenched.

Simple truths such as the implications of free fall which in any other context would be without debate, become markers of 'terrorism'.

Propaganda works, that's why they do it. In 2012 I made it to New York to observe September 11th with the few dozen other like-minded individuals who hold an alternative view of 9/11. We handed out fliers and talked to the public and amongst ourselves. On the street adjacent there were lined up a score of MSM satellite trucks 'reporting' and interviewing well known political figures and other sycophantic true believers. We reached a few thousand locals, perhaps, while the MSM message went to millions worldwide.

If we have an edge, it might be because truth has intrinsic value while lies must be polished.


The Global Terrorism Database: ... a grand total of 30 Americans killed in terrorist incidents inside the United States in the last 10 years.

The National Counterterrorism Center has been compiling worldwide deaths of private U.S. citizens due to terrorism since 2005. Terrorism is defined as “premeditated, politically motivated violence, perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents.”

In 2010 (the latest report), 15 Americans were killed in terrorist attacks; nine died in 2009; 33 in 2008; 17 in 2007; 28 in 2006; and 56 in 2005. The vast majority of private U.S. citizens killed in terrorist attacks died in the war zone countries of Iraq and Afghanistan. So the sad tally of Americans killed by terrorists around the world since 2005 comes to a total of 158, yielding an annual rate 16 Americans killed by terrorists outside of the borders of the United States.

The FBI has had a history of

The FBI has had a history of complicity in both domestic and international terrorism, both before and after 9/11. One example - probably well known to regular readers of this site, was the attack on the World Trade Center, February 26, 1993.


Michael Chertoff was the US Attorney appointed by HW Bush and retained by Bill Clinton for New Jersey from 1990-1994. As US Attorney for New Jersey Chertoff was deeply involved with the 1993 WTC bombing sting operation using FBI monitoring of the Abdel Rahman and Salem’s recruited cell members at the Al Salaam mosque in Jersey City. The US Attorney from New York who worked with Chertoff to prosecute the 1993 WTC bombing case was Patrick Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald is also conducting the federal grand jury investigating the illegal outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame, the wife of Ambassador Wilson who investigated claims of uranium acquisition by Iraq. Chertoff and Fitzgerald were fully aware of the statements made by prosecutors admitting that the FBI intentionally had provided the safe house for Salem terrorist recruits.

Boston Stories

Thanks for this roundup, Kevin. The latest Boston news including the absurd incomplete articles on infowars forget to mention that the Tsarnaev brothers had nothing to do with the smoke bombs, so it was actually irrelevant that they or just Tamerlan were linked to terrorism. So just a red herring. It's also good to say the truth about Sandy Hook as well, that detailed research reported on memoryholeblog.com reveals it was a hoax. Journalists are failing lately on all sides of the political arena and labeling terrorists to distract from government-greed-security-industry-drills and false flags. As we don't manufacture anything anymore war and security are bolstering the economy and providing employment.

Adding this corker with Bob Graham, and Fox disinfo staff dissing 9/11 truthers.


Who's being protected here? More "al Qaeda" operatives? ;);)

What is very telling, is the weird, almost paranoid attitude of the Fox presenter just prior to the Bob Graham interview - she goes to great pains to distance herself from what she calls "9/11 conspiracy theory nonsense". That, in itself, tends to point out that the show's director is aware of the reality of 9/11 - hence the totally forced, and entirely unnecessary, introduction! . Why did she have to do that? Was she expecting Sen. Graham to drop a bombshell or something? In a way, he did! And... he referred to other 9/11 "co-conspirators".

If there was official Saudi involvement re. some aspect of the operation, then that points to likely cooperation between them and elements within the US. In law, "Accessory before (or after) the fact" is equal to perpetrating the crime.

The great boulder laying in the road between 9/11 and justice, remains the corporate media.