The FBI again thwarts its own Terror plot

If anyone wants to read this article and tell me that I'm missing something, I would be pretty relieved. The article caught my eye because of its accusation against the FBI; after all, I have always thought the FBI was on my side. The article says that, "Time and again, the FBI concocts a Terrorist attack, infiltrates Muslim communities in order to find recruits, persuades them to perpetrate the attack, supplies them with the money, weapons and know-how they need to carry it out -- only to heroically jump in at the last moment, arrest the would-be perpetrators whom the FBI converted, and save a grateful nation from the plot manufactured by the FBI." Wow. What's even more shocking is that the article never gave a shred of evidence to back up this claim. It treated it as though it was a well-known, proven fact. If this is a fact, feel free to fill me in, because it's news to me. If it isn't an established fact, whoever wrote this article could definitely learn a little from our english textbook. It has no appeal to logos whatsoever. Sure, it goes on to explain why the attacks on our country shouldn't be considered "terrorist attacks," because we are at war and it is perfectly normal to be attacked in times of war. Well, I have a few questions for you, Mr. Glenn Greenwald. Since we are engaged in a "war on terror," why wouldn't the attacks, if part of the war, be considered terrorist attacks? Even if they aren't terrorist attacks, what does it matter? Shouldn't we defend our country and the lives of its civilians? The article is literally written with the obvious assumption that all of its accusations against the FBI have been proven true. It talks about why they do what they do and criticizes them, but it never questions if the FBI is really creating its own terrorist attacks. To me, it sounds like total nonsense. Perhaps, however, the way the article is written might convince some people. If the author totally made this idea up and has no evidence, I'd say he did a pretty good job considering. The dialect sounds pretty educated, and the tone begins rather sarcastically, which I think could be effective in sounding true to readers, especially those who like to question authorities. Some logical evidence is used to support the idea that the "terrorist attacks" occurring are not actually "terrorist attacks." Perhaps the author's logical argument in this area will convince people that he must have logical reasons for his other ideas too. However, I will be the first to "beg the question" in this case. How do we know that the FBI is actually fabricating terrorist attacks?

Article: http://www.salon.com/news/politics/fbi/index.html?story=/opinion/greenwald/2011/09/29/fbi_terror