"...Michael German, a former F.B.I. agent who researches
national security law at New York University's Brennan Center for
Justice, told the Times, 'They're [the FBI] manufacturing terrorism
cases.'" (The New Yorker, June 10, 2016, "Do FBI Stings help fight against ISIS?" by Evan Osnos)
The website Cryptogon has pieced together some interesting facts, and a
quite odd "coincidence." I'm bolstering their work.
First of all, the Orlando shooter, Omar Mateen, changed his name in
2006. As NBC News notes: "Records also show that he had filed a
petition for a name change in 2006 from Omar Mir Seddique to Omar Mir
Seddique Mateen."
Why is that important? Why is his original last name, Seddique, also
spelled Siddiqui, significant? Because of a previous terrorism case in
Florida, in which the FBI informant's name was Siddiqui. And because
that previous case may have been one of those FBI prop-jobs, where the
informant was used to falsely accuse a suspect of a terrorist act. The
New Yorker (cited above) has details:
"This is not the first time that the F.B.I. has attracted criticism from
national-security experts and civil-liberties groups for generating
terrorism cases through sting operations and confidential informants. In
'The Imam's Curse,' published in September, I reported on a Florida
family that was accused of providing 'material support' to terrorists.
In that case, a father, Hafiz Khan, and two of his sons were arrested.
The charges against the sons were eventually dropped, but Hafiz Khan was
convicted and sentenced to twenty-five years in prison. At Khan's
trial, his lawyer, Khurrum Wahid, questioned the reliability of the key
[FBI] informant in the case,
David Mahmood Siddiqui.
Wahid accused Siddiqui, who'd had periods of unemployment, of lying to
authorities because his work as a confidential informant was lucrative.
For his role in the case, Siddiqui had received a hundred and twenty-six
thousand dollars, plus expenses. But in a subsequent interview with the
Associated Press, Siddiqui stood by his testimony and motives: 'I did
it for the love of my country, not for money.'"
The website Cryptogon, which pieced this whole story together, comments:
"What are the odds that an FBI informant in a [previous] Florida
terrorist case shares the same last name as the perpetrator of the worst
mass shooting in U.S. history---also in Florida---[Omar Mateen] a lone
wolf cop poser with multiple acknowledged contacts with the FBI, who was
formerly listed on the terrorist watch list and associated with a
suicide bomber... while holding a valid security guard license?"
Indeed.
And in case you think Siddiqui is a common last name, here is a statement from Mooseroots:
"Siddiqui is an uncommon surname in the United States. When the United
States Census was taken in 2000, there were about 4,994 individuals with
the last name "Siddiqui," ranking it number 6,281 for all surnames.
Historically, the name has been most prevalent in the Southwest, though
the name is actually most common in Hawaii. Siddiqui is least common in
the southeastern states."
If for some reason the name Siddiqui throws you off, suppose the last
name was, let me make something up, Graposco? A few years ago, an FBI
informant in Florida, Graposco, appeared to have falsely accused a man
of terrorist acts---and in 2016, another Graposco, who changed that last
name to something else, killed 50 people in a Florida nightclub
shooting---after having been investigated twice by the FBI? Might that
coincidence grab your attention?
Again---the 2016 Orlando shooter had extensive contact with the FBI in
2013 and 2014. The FBI investigated him twice and dropped the
investigations. The FBI used an informant in a previous Florida case,
and that informant had the same last name as the Orlando shooter. It's
quite possible the previous informant was told to give a false statement
which incriminated a man for terrorist acts.
You can say this is a coincidence. Maybe it is. But it seems more than odd.
Are the two Siddiqui men connected?
Was the Orlando shooter involved in some kind of FBI plan to mount a
terror op that was supposed to be stopped before it went ahead, but
wasn't? Was the Orlando shooter "helped" over the edge from having
"radical ideas" to committing mass murder?
I could cite a number of precedents...
There seems to be a rule: if a terror attack takes place and the FBI investigates it, things are never what they seem.
No comments:
Post a Comment