De-Manufacturing Consent with Guillermo Jimenez- ISIS in Texas?

Guillermo Jimenez Presents Tom Secker

On this edition of De-Manufacturing Consent Tom Secker joins Guillermo to discuss the shooting in Garland, Texas that occurred in early May, when two men — Elton Simpson and Nadir Soofi — allegedly acting under orders from the Islamic State (ISIS) attacked the Mohammed Art Exhibit and Cartoon Contest at the Curtis Culwell Center. The contest to award $10,000 to the "best drawing of the prophet Mohammed" was held by Pamela Geller's American Freedom Defense Initiative, under the auspices of "free speech," and hosted speakers such as Dutch politician and anti-Islam activist Geert Wilders.

We discuss the rather flimsy claims of ISIS responsibility for the shooting; the questionable circumstances of the shooting itself and the heightened security presence at the event (including SWAT, FBI, and ATF); the FBI's foreknowledge and its surveillance of Simpson since at least 20007; and the potential for this to have been a "Gladio-style" false flag event. We also discuss the obvious comparisons to the Charlie Hebdo shooting, why Charlie Hebdo cartoonists have attempted to distance themselves from Geller's contest, and why some — even in the alternative media — have fallen into the binary-opposition trap and wrongly defend Geller's Islamophobia on free-speech grounds.

Listen to the Preview Clip Here


Listen to the full episode here (BFP Subscribers Only):

SUBSCRIBE

FB Like

Share This

This site depends….

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by SUBSCRIBING and/or DONATING.

Comments

  1. Ben Wolfson says:

    Apparently Geller chose the Culwell Center in response to an event held there by the Sound Vision called Stand With the Profit. I saw the story at the time because the media had reported on a counter protest angry about the Garland ISD hosting the event. I hadn’t realized that both these events were held at the same place.

  2. Olivier says:

    Hi Tom, you mentioned glaring CIA assets being ignored in the WTC 93 scenery as an indication of the FBI apparently being hung out to dry through Emad Salem. I presume you’re talking about Ramzi Yousef? Who else was an asset?

  3. These events are being used in this (war)theater of culture…!
    Like the one in Copenhagen. (copycats or…what).
    http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/copenhagen-shootings-security-tightened-uk-5169460
    By the way Tom, you said Jyllands-posten really good.
    Kind Regards
    Jens.

  4. Arnar Steinsson says:

    How many free speech events have a 10 000 dollar incentive to go to? There is a transcript of Simpson´s trial if anyone wants to read it. I think it was posted on many mainstream media outlets a day or two after the shooting. Here is a link to it http://www.wfaa.com/story/news/local/investigates/2015/05/04/garland-suspect-had-history-with-fbi-counterterror-unit/26875919/

  5. steven hobbs says:

    Great Show Guillermo and Tom,

    Particularly enjoyed your talk around fitting evidence to theory — and making it fit. And, your conversation (paraphrased) of an investigative and discovery mindset rather than a judicial one (proving truth) as the best way to proceed. I’m reminded of Corbett’s conversation with Tjeerd Andringa, “Are conspiracy theories falsifiable”. Such a way of proceeding is not only pragmatic, but more likely to provide substantial revelations without focusing too much on confirmation. It helps to keep our minds open. Who knows what new and unexpected data might we find? Yes. There is likely a complex web of actors with their own agendas. It is foolish of us to stop gathering information, or disregard that which doesn’t fit our preconceived notions. For my part, I prefer elegant and simple explanations of high probability, which also include as much information as possible with no internal contradiction.

    Why would the French fellows come on the air to deny that there is any relationship of Garland shooting to Hebdo? Is it part of some kind of absurd theater, perhaps? These questions might lead to binomial explanations of them being conspirators or innocents. As once was said, “There is no bad news,” when it comes to publicity. Attempting to answer motivation questions is philosophically complex, challenging, and perhaps always simply a best guess. Being reminded of Headly opens the frame, suggesting possibilities and multiplying complexity. It is always a good idea to address information that might expand the frame. Thanks for that.

    If Geller is on the brown list at SPLC, well that seals it. Just give me an ad hominem and I’ll be emotionally ready to dis Geller. But, I wonder when it is said that SPLC, “has no credibility.” It seems somewhat a strange comment on the tails of how the Geller crowd privileges “truth” on the basis of its opposition from SPLC. As an institution, so to speak, of “bricks and mortar,” situated in a southern law center, SPLC doesn’t deserve credibility other than that it exists. If SPLC, as the source of occasional statements of “truth,” then it rises to the level of being “credible” as a citizen might be. I suppose it would be the same as saying that Fox News has no credibility. Yet it is agreed that even Fox reports some things accurately. Really, I’d rather not reject statements from Geller, SPLC, or Fox out of hand due to “lack of credibility” and prefer to assess each statement on its merits, while remembering the source.

    Anyway, your conversation turns to “hero-izing,” and immediately “privileging” and “venerating” came to mind, and “patriotic nationalism”. These ideas relate to your conversation on Geller followers, and followers in general. There are ways we like to think of ourselves as beyond tribalism. Even if you take the cowboy out of the country, you can’t take the country out of the cowboy. In attempting to keep our minds open to information contradicting our biased theories, it’s valuable to remember our hermeneutic preferences and use them as only one of many stepping stones to discovery.

    Thank you

  6. kariflack says:

    i only got to listen to half now have to run — do you address Geller’s connections to the Brookings Institute (via Robert Spencer & the crazy bigoted organization they founded) or her history with spooky media events such as the “ground zero mosque”? i don’t believe this was some event just full of disparate wackos without some sort of outreach done to attract them to a “free speech event” drawing the Prophet (who does this?). Geller demonstrates obvious media training when she inevitably makes TV appearances in her psychotic deflection in discussing the spectacle so-called free speech has turned into.

  7. What’s going on here? This is like some sort of conspiracy, Tom keeps showing up everywhere at BFP. It’s as if I can’t escape him. 😉 Seriously though, I always appreciate Tom’s input. Of course as well as Guillermo’s for that matter.

    I honestly hadn’t paid much attention to the story so I certainly don’t have any information or facts to add, just opinion. Starting with which; although I’m glad nobody was seriously hurt, there’s part of me that I honestly feel both wrong and reluctant to admit, I guess maybe that; if the people at this event (those participating) were frightened or semi-traumatized I’m less than sympathetic. The Islamaphobia in this country truly disgusts me and part of me cringes on behalf of Muslim Americans every time I hear something about the “Islamic State”, or “violent jihadis”, etc.

    Part of my wariness of religion as a whole is the role it’s played throughout history, certainly through to the present, to drive people towards intolerance in general and violence in particular. I think being willing to kill people (and be killed) over a cartoon is asinine. However, in an attempt to look at the situation through a lens of humility, I can at least understand the rage behind the motivation that drives people over the edge.

    Although I’m not certain, I believe one of the particular aspects that makes the drawing of Mohamed such a hot button issue is the fact that merely depicting him in any for of artwork is pretty strictly prohibited. Again, I’m not positive, so someone please correct me if I’m wrong. In essence, it’s the exact opposite of Christianity where images of Christ and the Cross are everywhere.

    I think a lot of non-Muslim Americans, particularly those within the Bible Belt, not only don’t understand this, but would probably hold it in contempt simply for the fact that it’s one more thing that contradicts their religious views. The point Guillermo made about not having an issue with something like images of Christ raping the Virgin Mary (saying that makes me cringe as well, but it’s for the sake of argument…), I could imagine if there was a convention at, lets say a Muslim community center with this sort of imagery alone, nevermind a condemnation of Christianity, it’s difficult for me to imagine how there wouldn’t be a bloodbath.

    Regarding the FBI: if they were there taking precaution in consideration that the event might be provocative it might be the first occasion in which I might accredit them with acting prudently, foreseeing the potential that the situation got out of had. Alas though, the whole reason they’re supposed to have all these tools to trample on our civil rights and generally interfere in our lives in various nefarious ways, is so that theoretically they can stop something like this before it happens. Not wait until it does; better yet; insure that it does, so they can justify their budget and other perks that go along with the job. (Sibel mentions some of these in her memoir, but if she’d care to elaborate beyond that I’d be quite interested.)

    I’m not sure how this fits in here specifically; but on the topic of the FBI, one of the things that’s vexed and perplexed me about the Boston Marathon bombing, is the fact that there feels like there were different threads going on between, let’s call it, the FBI track and the CIA/State Department track. Out of a lack of better way to put it; it felt like the FBI got caught in some ways with their pants down and were forced to improvise a bit in the immediate followup (then later with the complete mop up, intimidation and assassination in Florida).

    Obviously they knew about Tamerlan and were forced(?) to admit that they had prior contact, as was the case in this incident, but this doesn’t quite seem like their recent modus operandi: essentially manufacturing “Islamic Terrorism” by intimidating, coercing, and preying on vulnerable and/or disgruntled Muslim Americans, so that they can win another “victory” in the “war on terror”. The BS explanation of all the events which followed in days after the initial “event” seemed like it was pulled together and assembled on the fly, particularly the death/assassination of the MIT officer. I’d have a very difficult time imagine this was premeditated in relation to the other event. We know the way the episode was used, but the specific goals seem less clear to me than I’d like and this is something which has eluded and frustrated me since then. So… any thoughts?

    One last note as an addendum to that question: for those of you that want to discuss the crisis actor theory, by all means; I’m not here to stifle debate. However, for those who want to try to berate me personally regarding my previous statements on the matter, or otherwise make efforts to undermine what I have to say elsewhere on this basis alone, I’m through with entertaining that politely – or at all for that matter. I’m not here to argue for the sake of arguing.

    • Ralph,

      I’m not sure I follow what you’re saying. But my closing paragraph had to do with a debate which had been going on in the comment section after a couple other previous podcasts. I’d expressed my views on the matter of whether crisis actors were used in the attack (opposed to people actually being injured), in response to a few other BFP members who were upset/frustrated with me and others who didn’t subscribe to this opinion and/or had concerns about the potential ramifications of suggesting this theory.

      I’d gotten tired of the debate, felt that it wasn’t going anywhere, and that the conversation itself was becoming unnecessarily contentious and hostile. I think BFP is a good place to argue about things as long as it’s done respectfully. Nobody’s got a monopoly on “the truth”, so if I’m not buying into something, after a certain amount of time I think hounding someone to change their mind on the premise that they’re “wrong” becomes disrespectful. I just wanted to talk about other aspects of the Boston Marathon bombing here (part of what I was saying in previous discussions) without getting sucked into the crisis actor debate exclusively again, that’s all.

      Hopefully that clears things up, but If you’re interested, I believe the discussion(s) in question are in the comment section for the first episode of Disinfowars.

  8. 344thBrother says:

    Speaking of radical Muslims… *cough*
    Is Al Zawahiri dead now again, or yet, or is he still “Masterminding” stuff? He seems to be deathless. And, is the Blind Sheik still active? Pardon me please if this has been answered previously.

    When they say mastermind, I think puppet of the mastermind. Is that too shallow?

    p
    d

Speak Your Mind