This is about the importance of knowing “the other side of the story”. Without this other side of the story, a publication, whether on line or in print, is of no use to the public.
Viewing only one side of the story concerning FBI sting operations [to suppress terrorism] is not only a bad reporting [misleading] but also poses a grave danger to national security.
I cannot expect a July Fourth Celebration of joy or look up at fireworks that puncture the evening sky and hear the other noises of merrymaking – and I am sure no one can – every time I view FBI entrapments in websites of liberty and freedom like FreedomPhoenix.com.
A journalist or a writer of good standing could write a success-storybook about the state-of-the-art modus operandi of those intricate FBI entrapments of the enemies of the State that fanatically turned themselves into a killing machine, i.e., local [Timothy McVeigh, etc.], and jihad terrorists  and their secretive or hiding lay accomplices living next door. Reporting such daring covert security measures taken leading to the assassins’ arrest and detention that no doubt for years now had made you and I lucky enough to live this long after 911, may deserve a certificate of merit from a thankful community, but I don’t expect this standing ovation to come from here.
It is ironic that in those “revolutionary” websites of liberty and freedom – not just in FP.com – whatever success this nation have on the war on terror [i.e., a 911-kind of terror has not struck us since the hunt of terrorists and their accomplices went internationally viral] is somehow lost in the heart of the people, especially in the heart and mind of those who have an ax to grind against the Government, whether the reason for such hatred, violent hostility or security threat is legitimate or not.
For example, in this particular revolutionary Libertarian domain, neither you nor I who are outside looking inside can expect encouraging words of thanks and appreciation much more catcalls of admiration for those drastic security measures being taken that would indicate strong positive reactions powerful enough to morally redirect this screwed up perception of right and wrong, and restore this terribly messed up sense of national gratitude back to normal.
On the contrary, expect only one and the same story to read that negatively, even angrily, describes the success of the FBI sting operations, especially now that these are conducted under the authority of Congress … the National Defense Authorization Act that no longer allows “due process” to terrorists and terrorist suspects. The only stories reported that dig a hole in your mind are those about “fake” FBI arrests, FBI- staged written by a self-styled seer of truth in whose mind FBI sting operations are nothing but “False Flags for Dummies”.
Thus in this website [ a homepage that you and I patronize without any attached condition], it is becoming more and more obvious that the need to read “the other side” of those very angry anti-Government stories – not just about the FBI sting operations – HAD BECOME ACUTE.
Without this “other side of the story”, this website will be of no use to the general public. Stonewalling will kill it, like suppressing a lot of those “other side of the story” that I sent to our Letter-to-Editor box not just once but several times before. And yet, I did not allow myself to be discouraged [that is as far as my rapidly thinning patience is still holding out] by those thoughtless and reckless rejections because if I did, there will be no more reportorial “balance” on what the people read, and the reading public and I would lose interest. A monologue publication of rage and rants will result and a publication dies gradually out of inanity.
The urgency of such a need of the public to view “the other side of the story” is even more compelling when it is advertised as a policy of FP.com to “solicit” free public opinions – not opinions or views that should only jibe or conform to that of Editor Powell Gammill’s stand on issues of public interest, which unfortunately is more condescending than differential or respectful.
It is for this reason that I would rather get speared by Powell Gammill and his anti-Government associates of rage and contempt like Larken Rose and his kind, and suffer the wound it creates, than see the demise of an otherwise excellent website that becomes blacklisted or about to disappear due to public disdain and editorial crassness, more so when it becomes a mythological one-eyed Cyclops as a result of a serious editorial mismanagement as imprudent and as irresponsible as blindsiding and stonewalling.
Since 911, “fear reprioritizes [our] commitments, and security supplants rights”. This truth cannot be ignored. Insofar as survival is concerned, we “suffered a breakdown in political empathy”. That’s because the next 911 could be biological; the next WMD terrorists would use could wipe out the entire population of New York or Los Angeles and places the survival of this nation in the highest level of peril. We could no longer take any more chance of that kind of tragedy happening at all, as you probably can see how the Department of Homeland Security is responding to this national crisis like crazy.
Under this response of a “responsible” Government in controlling a very dangerous situation ever in the history of mankind, it is very easy to see how our “rights” are being “diminished” or “eroded”, and how our liberty is being supplanted by security. Only a severe case of myopia would prevent us from seeing all these in front of our eyes. But to see how we are now fighting this new war on terror that knows no boundary – to understand how desperate we are to win this war on terror in order to secure no less than our own life and liberty -- is as difficult to see, due to a canopy of blinding hatred, philosophical prejudice and ideological blindness, as when one is trying to see the stars at the wrong end of the telescope. These are all here in this website for the curious to know. I just put a language to what you are looking at even as we speak.
To a myopic ideological visionary, how the FBI plants a mole to penetrate a terrorist cell, and then conducts a raid to arrest the enemy of the State is not of immediate concern or of any paramount interest. The immediate priority is to denounce the sting operation as purely “evil” based on the general notion of deception or “betrayal”. An ideological visionary of terrorism is more of a mouthpiece than a hardcore assassin, but what it is doing is as lethal as the “Sword of Allah” that sheds blood in the “Holy War” of Islam – a weapon molded in the symbolic form of a crescent-shaped cold steel of Jihad to cut off the heads of infidel!
But to those suffering a blinding hatred of the Federal Government, including but not limited to philosophers of bigotry intolerant of the beliefs of others, as well as to raving ideological fantasists, the study of National Security and the survival of the State is a distinct collegial science by itself apart from the simply study of criminology that they hardly know. Generally, to them it is uncomfortable to know, much more accept the fact, that a security sting operation is fundamentally based on the cultivation of trust and friendship that breaks through a labyrinthine framework of terrorist connections [the accompanying picture gives you an idea]. Their terrorist cells are akin to a topnotch garrison of secrecy closely guarded as Fort Knox.
Let me cite the modus operandi of the FBI that penetrate this terrorist Fork Knox of secrecy leading to the arrest of terrorist suspects: “F.B.I. … undercover agents and informers posed as terrorists offering a dummy missile, fake C-4 explosives, a disarmed suicide vest and rudimentary training. Suspects naïvely played their parts until they were arrested.”
This one is for the book: “When an Oregon college student, Mohamed Osman Mohamud, thought of using a car bomb to attack a festive Christmas-tree lighting ceremony in Portland, the F.B.I. provided a van loaded with six 55-gallon drums of ‘inert material,’ harmless blasting caps, a detonator cord and a gallon of diesel fuel to make the van smell flammable. An undercover F.B.I. agent even did the driving, with Mr. Mohamud in the passenger seat. To trigger the bomb the student punched a number into a cellphone and got no boom, only a bust.”
Terrorist sympathizers abused what Benjamin Franklin said about temporary safety and liberty to support the freedom of terrorists to kill and their liberty to destroy. “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
It is an insult to Benjamin Franklin. Terrorist sympathizers knew that at the time this famous quotation came out in public shortly before February 17, 1775 in the Pennsylvania Assembly, the nation has no 911 and was not at war with Islamic Fundamentalism that sent assassins to mass murder Americans and bomb their cities to kingdom come. They used Franklin’s admonition not to give up liberty “to buy a little temporary safety” at the wrong time … at a totally different time – definitely at a time when the situation was totally different from what we have now, especially after 911. Besides, the personal safety and national security we need now at the price of having a “diminished” liberty, is NOT for a “little temporary safety” at all as in Franklin’s time [see the original quote below]. After 911, that safety and security we need are NOT temporary, these are for all times’ sake … FOREVER, if you may, because unlike the proverbial cat that has nine lives, we have but only one life to live that terrorist can take out anytime, anywhere.
Those who quote Franklin’s dictum to support their monopoly of liberty and freedom [including the freedom of terrorists to kill and their liberty to destroy] is guilty of culpable ignorance if not gross mental dishonesty, let alone guilty of an unforgivable stupendous stupidity.
Think about this – and take it from no other else but me: Ignorant terrorist coddlers who abuse Benjamin Franklin to their advantage, didn’t even know that the ORIGINAL statement they are quoting out of Franklin, is not Franklin’s. It was Richard Jackson’s. “This was used as a motto on the title page of An Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania. (1759); the book was published by Franklin; its author was Richard Jackson. The variant of this was published as: Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”
It is for this reason that our readers shouldn’t be blindside by a monologue of self-designed propaganda materials published, mainly as an outlet of a corked hatred or intolerant bigotry. To know “the other side of the story” is not an option but a crucial imperative. It is even more compelling when to view the other side of the story is to know the truth that I have just demonstrated.