Intelligence Chiefs say Terrorism Plot in U.S. ‘Certain’ (Editorial by Hayden)
Feb 4th, 2010 | By Kevin Hayden | Category: Featured Articles




Source: CNN Editorial by Kevin Hayden, Truth is Treason’s Main Contributing Author
Another attempted terrorist attack on the United States in coming months is “certain,” the heads of major U.S intelligence agencies told a Senate committee Tuesday.

Al Qaeda remains the top security threat to the United States, but a growing cyber-security threat also must be addressed by the U.S. intelligence community, the heads of the CIA, the FBI and other agencies told the Senate Intelligence Committee.

The hearing covered a range of security issues and became contentious, with Republicans on the committee arguing with Democratic counterparts and the intelligence chiefs on how the Obama administration has handled terrorism suspects such as the failed Christmas Day bomber of a U.S. airliner.

Asked by committee chair Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-California, of the likelihood of another attempted terror attack on the United States in the next three to six months, the officials agreed with Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair’s initial answer of “certain.”

While none of the intelligence chiefs, who included CIA Director Leon Panetta, FBI Director Robert Mueller and others, cited a specific pending threat, their testimony made clear that an evolving al Qaeda remains their top concern.

“My greatest concern, and what keeps me awake at night, is that al Qaeda and its terrorist allies and affiliates could very well attack the United States,” Panetta said.

Al Qaeda is adapting methods to make their plots more difficult to detect, shifting from large attacks with multiple players to using individuals without any background in terrorism, Panetta said.

He noted the Christmas Day attempt as an example, saying the suspect had a U.S. visa but little history of involvement with terrorist groups.

“Obviously, they decided to make use of someone like that within a very short period of time” of the suspect coming into contact with al Qaeda, Panetta said.

________________________________________________________

Hayden’s Note -
Let’s dissect what they just said in relations to forming a “patsy” to take the fall. One theory states that Umar, the Christmas Day Bomber, was a patsy – a wannabe al-Qaeda member who began his short lived terrorism career as a “moderate.” After reaching out for support, friendship, a father figure – whatever… Intelligence agents stumble upon Umar and think he’ll make a perfect patsy. He has no discernible, long-term ties to any actual insurgency and is a fresh face in the intel/terrorism scene. They reach out, make contact – rush him through a brief 30 day “training” to solidify his story (psy-op), and then get him on a US-bound plane with no passport. Furthermore, they knew the explosive would not actually detonate. It was designed similar to a large firecracker. A little pop!, smoke and some fire and voila! Suicide bomber fails bombing attempt on airliner and puts the fear of al-Qaeda back in the hearts and minds of the American people. I mean, on Christmas day!? Let that sink in.

This exact storyline unfolded with the ‘Dallas Bomber” a short time ago when intelligence agents reached out to Mosam Maher Husein Smadi, a 19 year old “moderate” also looking for that “peer support” or a sense of belonging. The Feds gave Mosam an inert explosive device, cellphone detonator, and then drove him and the “bomb” to an underground Dallas parking garage. As they drove off, the undercover agents even asked Mosam if he wanted some earplugs because the explosion would be so loud! As soon as Mosam dialed the cellphone detonator, agents stopped the SUV and arrested him.

They CREATED a terrorist. This was a flase flag event. Mosam might have never come into contact with an actual insurgent group, but by falling for the Feds’ trap (entrapment?), he became a killer. They of course used this sensationalism in order to splash the headlines around the country, “Terror Plot Foiled in the Heartland!” A round of high-fives were made at the office and everyone went home happy.

Furthermore, by using someone who has no actual ties to insurgent groups or extremist groups, there can be no risk of being ratted out. Essentially, by keeping it all “in house” they needn’t worry about outside sources discovering who the patsy was working for. The intel community knows that if any particular insurgency group denied the attack, saying that the “terrorist” in question was actually an intel asset, who would believe them? Americans have been conditioned to automatically deny any topic or conversation regarding their government conducting false flag operations or having ties to the terrorists we’re supposed to be afraid of.

And what about the two “terrorists” arrested in NYC some 8 months ago? There is credible evidence and testimony that states they agreed to the “terrorist plot” because the Feds/undercover ‘terrorists’ offered them a few ounces of marijuana and a bit of money! Clearly, these are not the actions of righteous holy jyhadists hell bent on killing the Western aggressors. Furthermore, their lawyer made a motion to question their mental ability, suggesting further contradictions to the official story.

The Intel Community preys on the weak willed, wanna-be warriors and uses them for sensational headlines to justify their jobs and the multi-billion dollar budgets. If Americans weren’t scared of the “terrorists” then what would happen to the Dept of Homeland Security? Where would they get funding? How else could they control so many so easily? How would so many corporations prosper so greatly if it were not for the fear of Terrorism?

And on a side note, this closely resembles the War on Drugs, doesn’t it? The focus is on street level narcotic arrests while literal truckloads of dangerous narcotics are being pushed across the border, poppy fields are protected by NATO troops in Afghanistan and several small intel agencies receive most of their funding directly from the sales and proceeds of illicit drugs and arms trafficking. If the War on Drugs vanished, so would the need for a large group of agents, consultants and private firms.

Umar is simply the latest patsy. As Senator Dianne Feinstein mentioned, I am certain that a terrorist event will take place in the next 3 to 6 months. I simply apply a different definition of “terrorism” to these events and prefer to call them by their true name – False Flag Terror Operations.

I believe the “next event” will be conducted in a similar fashion as the Mumbai attacks occurred. A small group of “terrorists” will strike fear in the heartland by executing a chaotic, fully automatic Hollywood shootout styled attack that echoes the bloody hotels of India. And who will these willing participants be? Easily expendable patsies with no strong ties to terrorism that could strike anywhere, anytime.

________________________________________________________

Blair also said that deciding whether to prosecute terrorist suspects in a criminal court or by a military commission should be decided on a case-by-case basis.

The question involved the handling of Umar Farouk AbdulMutallab, the suspect in the failed Christmas Day bombing of a U.S. airliner.

Republicans have criticized security officials for charging the suspect in criminal court instead of treating him as an enemy combatant to be prosecuted by a military commission.

Sen. Kit Bond, R-Missouri, said it was a mistake for security officials to have read AbdulMutallab his Miranda rights on the night he was arrested, instead of first conducting further interrogation.

Blair, however, said the handling of terror suspects requires flexibility to allow for the appropriate response in each case. FBI Director Robert Mueller agreed, saying that providing a suspect with Miranda rights can bring better information than traditional military or intelligence interrogation.

Mueller noted that incentive agreements with suspects have many times resulted in gaining “actionable intelligence” that otherwise might never have come forward.

Republican Sens. Olympia Snowe of Maine and James Risch of Idaho, asked why AbdulMutallab was read his Miranda rights so quickly. Mueller said the decision must be considered in the context of the full investigation.

“You’re looking at it through the rear-view mirror,” Mueller said.

“Do not discount what has happened or what does happen after that in terms of gaining intelligence.”

Later Tuesday, a law enforcement official told CNN AbdulMutallab had been talking to investigators since last week and providing useful, current and actionable intelligence — leads that the FBI and intelligence officials have been actively following up.

The official was not authorized to speak for attribution because the case remains under investigation. Mueller said none of the intelligence chiefs at Tuesday’s hearing were consulted about the decision to read AbdulMutallab his Miranda rights. That decision was made by the chief security interrogator at the scene in consultation with the Department of Justice, Mueller said.

The discussion included a harsh exchange among committee members, with Democratic Sens. Feinstein, Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia and Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island accusing Republican Sens. Bond and Orrin Hatch of Utah of politicizing the issue.

Feinstein noted the policy of charging terrorists in U.S. criminal courts dates back to the Reagan administration, while Whitehouse called Republican framing of the issue “fallacious.”

Hatch also asked Blair if any evidence showed that President Obama’s plan to close the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, detention facility for terrorism suspects would reduce the terrorist threat against the United States.

Hatch and Bond said they opposed the plan because it would bring terrorism suspects to U.S. soil.

Blair responded that Guantanamo has become a major recruiting tool for al Qaeda, setting off an exchange with Hatch that concluded with Blair saying: “Guantanamo has achieved a sort of mythic quality that helps al Qaeda.”

In his written testimony to the committee, Blair said it would take the capture or deaths of al Qaeda’s top two leaders — Osama bin Laden and Ayman al Zawahiri — to possibly end the group’s intent to attack the United States.

On the cyber-security threat, Blair’s written testimony described an inability to contend with attacks using computer networks and telecommunications systems.

“Sensitive information is stolen daily from both government and private sector networks, undermining confidence in our information systems, and in the very information these systems were intended to convey,” Blair wrote. “We often find persistent, unauthorized, and at times, unattributable presences on exploited networks, the hallmark of an unknown adversary intending to do far more than merely demonstrate skill or mock a vulnerability.”

Feinstein agreed with Blair’s assessment that the nation was unprepared for the kinds of possible cyber attacks it could face.

“The need to develop an overall cyber-security strategy is very clear,” Feinstein said.