New York Times: FBI Hatches Terror PlotsTony Cartalucci But all these dramas were facilitated by the F.B.I., whose undercover agents and informers posed as terrorists offering a dummy missile, fake C-4 explosives, a disarmed suicide vest and rudimentary training. Suspects naively played their parts until they were arrested. The report would also reveal that a fabricated, then foiled attack in Portland in 2010, even included a van and an inert bomb parked next to a real crowd of thousands during the citys annual Christmas tree lighting ceremony: The NYT piece continues, describing how the FBI picks its targets: The article also explains how some targets seem ambivalent, incompetent and adrift, like hapless wannabes looking for a cause that the informer or undercover agent skillfully helps them find. Disturbingly, the NYT reports what appears to be the coaxing of one target toward violence they would otherwise never have considered: A year after the NYT article was written, the Boston Marathon would be attacked by two explosive devices, killing three and injuring many more. The suspects,Tamerlan Tsarnaev and brother Dzhokar Tsarnaev,would be announced by the FBI a day after a bizarre press conference cancellation and a security scare at the federal courthouse where a suspect was allegedly being brought. An explanation for the FBIs bizarre behavior may be owed to the fact that it now turns out that at least one of the suspects in the Boston bombing had caught the attention of Russian investigators in 2011 who then contacted the FBI to investigate the matter. The FBI would indeed interview Tamerlan Tsarnaev, several family members, and conduct investigations into Tsarnaevs background, phone conversations, and Internet activity. This was all finally disclosed on April 19, 2013 in an official statement that can be found on FBI.gov: The FBIs bizarre behavior grew more suspicious when CBS reported that initially the FBI denied it had any prior contact with the Tsarnaevs. In their report, CBS News: FBI Interviewed Tamerlan Tsarnaev 2 Years Ago, CBS claimed: That interview with Russia Today, in an article titled, They were set up, FBI followed them for years- Tsarnaevs mother to RT, stated of the suspects mother: She would say of the FBI to Russia Today: Additionally, the suspects uncle, Ruslan Tsarni, told NBC news in an article titled, Uncle: Mentors radicalized older Boston bombing suspect, that: There certainly were mentors. I was shocked when I heard his words, his phrases, when every other word he starts sticking in words of God. I question what hes doing for work, (and) he claimed he would just put everything in the will of God. It was a big concern to me. He called me confused when I started explaining to him, make yourself useful to yourself and to your family and maybe youll have extra to share with everybody else. It wasnt devotion, it was something, as its called, being radicalized. Not understanding what he is talking (about). He is just using words for the sake of the words and not understanding the meaning of it. Perhaps, these two young suspects were looking for a cause, that an informer or undercover agent skillfully helped them find. Clearly now, it is confirmed by the FBI itself, in an official statement found on their website, that they did indeed contacted the suspect and his family. The FBI also claims it, did not find any terrorism activity, domestic or foreign, but clearly there must have been some evidence of at least some pure speech comments to an informer outside a mosque, angry postings on Web sites, e-mails with radicals overseas. The FBI refuses to elaborate on the case, prompting even journalists across the mainstream media to ask important questions. Business Insiders article, The FBI Needs To Explain Why It Failed To Monitor Boston Bombing Suspect Despite A Clear Warning, asks the following questions: The answer to these questions may help answer what transpired between 2011 when the FBI allegedly closed the case, and the 2013 bombings including answering whether or not the Tsarnaev brothers were part of yet another FBI entrapment. Perhaps such suspicion may seem unwarranted, after all, despite the FBI fabricating terror attacks, they averted them before being carried out But at least one undercover operation, in 1993, was carried out to deadly effect. FBI agents, according to the New York Times, were indeed overseeing the bombers that detonated a device killing six and wounding many more at the World Trade Center. In their article, Tapes Depict Proposal to Thwart Bomb Used in Trade Center Blast, NYT reported: The informer was to have helped the plotters build the bomb and supply the fake powder, but the plan was called off by an F.B.I. supervisor who had other ideas about how the informer, Emad A. Salem, should be used, the informer said. The account, which is given in the transcript of hundreds of hours of tape recordings Mr. Salem secretly made of his talks with law-enforcement agents, portrays the authorities as in a far better position than previously known to foil the Feb. 26 bombing of New York Citys tallest towers. The explosion left six people dead, more than 1,000 injured and damages in excess of half a billion dollars. Can the FBI then, be ruled out as a prime suspect or accomplice in the Boston blasts? And isnt it monumental folly to allow the FBI to investigate a crime they may have played a central role in? Raising suspicions further was the decision made not to read the lone surviving suspect his Miranda rights. While US President Barack Obama, the Justice Department and Republican Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham claim such a disgraceful violation of American law is required for security, it seems more likely that it is instead needed to enhance a desperate coverup. And if 10 years of war, torture, indefinite detention without trial, and the creation and expansion of the Department of Homeland Security, the FBIs Joint Terror Task Force, the TSA, and other federal agencies couldnt prevent the Boston bombings, why does the President, DOJ, and two Republican Senators believe suspending the rights of a suspect will in any way make America safer? A better question is, why do we the people continue to let them make these decisions? Tony Cartaluccis articles have appeared on many alternative media websites, including his own at 