FBI's Presence At The Garland, Texas Shooting Appears To Show It Prefers Easier Terrorism Arrests

from the FBI-takes-a-pass dept

Given the FBI’s skill at cultivating terrorists to arrest and indict, you’d think it would have done a better job handling the planned terrorist attack in Garland, Texas. The two shooters were killed by local police before they could kill any attendees at a “Draw Mohammed” event thrown by anti-Muslim activist (and bumbling litigant) Pam Geller.

The FBI appears to prefer “hunting” terrorists who are about 90% talk and 10% insolvent. The list of FBI terrorism busts includes senior citizens, people with cognitive disabilities, and wannabe ISIS militants so terrifying they can’t even talk their mom into giving them their passport back so they can go fight for ISIS.

When faced with suspects with coherent plans and firepower, the FBI simply motors away from ground zero. Literally. A 60 Minutes investigation into the Garland shooting reveals the FBI was on top of the suspects for several years, but failed to prevent the attack from being carried out. Elton Simpson, one of the shooters, was in constant contact with an FBI informant, and had been tracked on and off by the feds since 2006.

Dabla Deng spent three years pretending to be Simpson’s friend, and was paid $132,000 by the FBI. He taped more than 1,500 hours of their conversations and finally recorded him talking about traveling overseas to wage jihad. Simpson lied to the FBI about it and got three years probation.

The time and money spent were ultimately useless. The FBI closed its file on Simpson in 2014, but reopened it after Simpson began talking up terrorism in social media posts. Less than three weeks before the 2015 Garland attack, the FBI was back undercover, in contact with Simpson. These details were uncovered by a lawyer for Abdul Malik Abdul Kareem. Kareem was a friend of Simpson’s and was convicted on material support and conspiracy charges. Multiple pages of declassified text messages not only showed the FBI was in contact with Simpson in the weeks leading up to the attack, but was actually present at the event that drew the attack.

[T]his past November, [attorney Dan] Maynard was given another batch of documents by the government, revealing the biggest surprise of all. The undercover FBI agent was in a car directly behind Elton Simpson and Nadir Soofi when they started shooting.

Faced with an actual terrorist attack, the FBI agent took off, leaving local police to fend off the well-armed attackers. The undercover agent was arrested at gunpoint by cops a short distance away.

Now, there may be legitimate reasons for an undercover not to get involved in a shootout. He may not have had the proper training or the weapons on hand to make a difference. But it’s definitely not a good look to arrive on scene of an attack featuring suspects you’re intimately familiar with and drive away when the bullets start flying. Especially not when the agent has stopped long enough to see the suspects exit their vehicle with weapons and, for some reason, to take a cell phone photo of the two people who would be shot at first: a school security guard and a local police officer.

The FBI won’t explain what happened or why it happened. It refuses to discuss the closed investigation and claims no one at the agency had any advance knowledge of the planned attack — which presumably includes the special agent working undercover and present at the scene.

This would be the same agent whose text messages have been turned over to attorney Dan Maynard. Those appear to show the FBI had some advance knowledge of the planned shooting. The only obvious explanation for the FBI’s claim that there was no foreknowledge (other than the agency is just lying) is that it saw the communications but wasn’t convinced they were serious enough to act on.

There’s a lot of gray area between talking big and being willing to carry out a terrorist attack. The FBI is never going to be able to make the correct judgment call in every situation. The problem is the FBI definitely appears to prefer pushing trash talkers into making terrorist attack supply runs at the local Wal-Mart or plane tickets to Turkey and busting them as soon as it ticks enough boxes for a successful prosecution. In doing so, its anti-terrorism skills aren’t improving. Real threats will slip through while people who would find it difficult to hold down a job, much less plan and carry out a terrorist attack, are being indicted, convicted, and served up as testaments to the FBI’s anti-terrorism skills.

But in Garland, Texas — where real terrorists with a sizable supply of weapons and a coherent attack plan opened fire — the FBI was not only on the scene, but left as soon as it became obvious there was an attack taking place. No matter the reason, this isn’t a good look for an agency whose counterterrorism reputation is built on dozens of super-safe busts.

Filed Under: , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “FBI's Presence At The Garland, Texas Shooting Appears To Show It Prefers Easier Terrorism Arrests”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
David says:

You don't see the forest for the trees.

The FBI busts those “terrorists” who are too stupid for carrying out a successful attack. A successful attack is needed occasionally in order to keep the funding. The job of the recruiter was done once an attack was in progress, so he was no longer needed on site and there was no point in needlessly risking friendly fire.

David says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

Sigh. You don’t get it.

A “dramatic takedown” needs to end in the suckers before court and the FBI taking credit for having thwarted a terrorist attack.

If an actual attack is commencing, the FBI has failed in managing its assets, so the FBI does not want to advertise having enabled an actual terrorist attack.

So the solution is to run away and let the killers act independently in order to minimize the damage. The damage for the FBI, that is.

Aaron Walkhouse (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3

Sigh. You don’t get it. ;P

Dabla Deng was not an FBI badgeholder.‌ ‌ He was a hireling.

This “agent” doesn’t have to let them live in order to get the
credit for stopping a “terrorist” attack. ‌ He wins both ways.
He wouldn’t even have to admit his undercover role afterward;
but if he did he still wins.

Running away at that moment was cowardice. ‌ No more. ‌ No less.

Anonymous Coward says:

False Flags

The FBI seems to be the primary driver of false flag attacks. Since this agent was on scene and failed to report anything about it prior to the attack, they are directly responsible. Over and over they lead morons through the basics of planning attacks and then pounce on them at the last minute. They have proven over and over that they are not following the rules anymore and the anger at those who point it out exacerbates the problem.

Anonymous Coward says:

It’s happening all over the world. A bunch of otherwise peaceful protests in the last 5 years or so were at risk because of undercover LEOs whose purpose was to try and incite violence.

Don’t get me wrong terrorism is still a very real and dangerous problem but stuff like this is just standard procedure.

Reminds me of a quote from “Jay and Silent Bob”:
“if you were a sheep, would you f%^& a sheep”
“Yo, this m*@)$%#%&!er ain’t one of us. He said he’d f%^& a sheep!”

Anonymous Coward says:

It's easier when you write the script yourself...

But when you have to actually try and discover the real threats, the FBI finds it’s more lacking in investigative prowess than it would care to admit.

The FBI, overconfident by their success at solving terror-plots they wrote themselves, are discovering that in the real world, solving a case is not as easy as it is in the movies…

That One Guy (profile) says:

"We don't get paid to stop real threats!"

So the agency is great at busting ‘threats’ that are only ‘threats’ because of the agency, but when an actual threat pops up even long-term surveillance and someone literally at the scene as it happens isn’t enough to prevent anything.

The FBI has spent so much time focused on finding and cultivating their own ‘terrorists’ to bust that when the real thing comes around they have no idea what to do. How to spot them, how to stop them, both are beyond the agency due to them becoming so used to being the ones calling the shots from start to finish.

Oh yeah, this is definitely an agency making good use of it’s budget.

Tammy Swofford (user link) says:

Garland Terror Attack

Having lived through the experience of the Garland terror attack I remain mad as Hell regarding the disclosure of an FBI agent immediately behind the attack vehicle. There was a pre-teen girl at the event, and an elderly woman was in the parking lot at the time of the attack, as were others.

Why were these men not stopped the second they crossed over the city boundary into Garland? In spite of a lack of full knowledge regarding facts surrounding the event my anger is directed at whoever thought it was a good thing to draw men into a kill box using innocent civilians as stage props.

Pronounce (profile) says:

Same MO

Now let’s have 60 Minutes investigate the Boston Marathon bombing. I suspect the investigation will uncover strikingly similar evidence.

The bottom line in every report of every failure by the U.S. government in regards to any event has been, and will be, summed up in one word “incompetence”.

Pearl Harbor – incompetence
9/11 – incompetence
OMB security breach – incompetence
Unsecured sever breach containing NSA hacking tools – incompetence

How anyone can have faith in such an incompetent organization? I will never understand.

Personanongrata says:

Re: Same MO

Now let’s have 60 Minutes investigate the Boston Marathon bombing. I suspect the investigation will uncover strikingly similar evidence.

Whowhatwhere.org has already beaten 60 Minutes to the punch.

Highlighted text below was excerpted from multiple reports found at the website whowhatwhy.org:

Missing Evidence of Prior FBI Relationship with Boston Bomber, June 6, 2015 – James Henry

In fact, it turns out that Tamerlan Tsarnaev came to the FBI’s attention at least twice prior to Russia’s March 2011 warnings.


Tamerlan Tsarnaev’s Immigration Records Reveal FBI Bombshell, May 11, 2016 – James Henry

WhoWhatWhy has discovered that the FBI secretly flagged at least one of the “Boston Marathon bombers” as a terrorist threat in his immigration records, despite publicly denying it had done so.


It would appear as if one of FBI’s primary Raison de’tre is not preventing terror acts but facilitating their occurrence.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...