if he was the one seeking out al Qaeda contacts?

"An undercover FBI agent posed as an al-Qaida facilitator, supplying him with 20 50-pound bags of what he thought were explosives to use in building his bomb. "

What happens is this: The young kid, full of spit and vinegar, probably takes some shit from somebody, making fun of his nationality, or his country, etc. Starts talking how tough he is, or how tough his country is, gets a little carried away, and is turned in by someone, to the FBI. FBI poses as an "al-Qaida facilitator," to get the ball rolling, challenges him to put up or shut up, and then supplies him with the fake bomb, etc. BINGO! You done caught yourself a real live "Terrorist." Nevermind that this could would never have lifted a finger to hurt this country had not the FBI undercover agent "facilitated" him. He's, by God, a terrorist and we dun protected 'Murika' by arresting him.

This really is such bullshit. It's pure and simple entrapment. And, if you read about these cases, time and time again, you see the pattern emerging. It's always the same.

I think regardless of whether anyone disagrees with you or not insofar as an explanation goes in the preceeding paragraphs you wrote, the pattern you talk about is, IMO, incontrovertible.

PB

aka "youthful indiscretion"?

It was horseshit when Dubya used that b.s., and it's bullshit here. Sorry, that "kid" is 21, plenty old enough to know you don't blow up buildings because of "peer pressure."

Give me a break.

has been 'facilitated' by government provocateurs.

There is always the possibility that however he was looking to make connections would have netted him a real terrorist who would have been only too happy to help him build a real bomb. And frankly the kid should have known it wasn't actually al qaida because he was willing to die, but they told him it wasn't necessary. A real alqaida operative would have encouraged him to blow himself up.

seems it's really hard to contact those al qaida facilitators.

my question is, if al qaida is so determined to bomb something, why don't they just *do* it? why would they waste their time using poor near-illiterate black men from florida or a big-mouthed pakistani exchange student? are these the good operatives for terror plots? why would al-qaida need to operate through such people?

All of the terror plots? Really? Hmm... seems there have been a few terror plot where young men have been recruited to give up their lives in order to kill as many people as possible. They found those young men somehow so it seems to me they aren't really so elusive if you're willing to do their bidding.

Would you rather stand back and then complain that nothing was being done to root out the people who were willing to do the bidding of al qaida when a real bomb is detonated and kills real people? Here's the deal, regardless of how it came about that man pushed the button he thought was going to detonate a bomb. Who's to say that if he hadn't come in contact with law enforcement, or al qaida, that he wouldn't have just figured out how to build a bomb by himself and just acted on his own?

I am glad these types of people are being rooted out and removed from the general population. It doesn't matter to me how they are found, only that they are. However, there was nothing illegal in how this guy was found.

up illiterate black men and students, potential terrorists all.

there's a word for it.

If a person seeks out an avenue to do harm and is intercepted and allowed to show whether there is real intent it is nothing more than good police work. I'm so sick of everything having to be about racism. How about something actually being about the actions of the person rather than his/her skin color.

you, but I do know a fair amount about how our government has and does operate and this smacks of election year, appropriation time theatrics.

Funny how Timothy McVeigh, Omar Abdel-Rahman, and OBL all managed to orchestrate actual attacks with no interference or knowledge of our omnipotent government, but these guys are "headed off before they could do any real damage", and just in time to make some "news".

I've never been one to believe all the conspiracy theorists and their ideas about how our government operates behind the scenes. Are you accusing our President of setting this up to sway voters? Or are you just saying that since there have only been a few successful terrorist attacks on our soil that we should just not bother looking for any potential terrorists?

Completely disagree this man was induced. He went looking and offered himself up. Thankfully what he found wasn't the real thing or we would be talking about a terrorist attack rather than a sting.

Have you ever considered that we may have learned something from McVeigh, OAR, and OBL and now we know we have to keep watch and intercept before they can develop and carry out a real attack?

I'm kind of amazed by the attitudes that there was somehow something wrong with this guy being allowed to show his intent. It's one thing to sympathize a little, but quite another to think we should be a willing target and not be proactive in stopping another attack.

FBI to maintain power for over 40 years? Do you doubt that citizens of New York were purposely infected with communicable viruses in the subways to track infection vectors in the the 50's and 60's? Do you deny that "our" government purposely infected black airmen with syphilis, and denied them treatment for decades to document the results? Do you deny that "our" government conducted covert and illegal wars in Cambodia and Laos? How about overthrowing the democratically elected government of Mohammed Mossadegh and installed the Shah in 1953? How many examples would you like?

It's the blind faith and fear that you so readily display that allow these atrocities to happen and continue. As I clearly stated in my previous reply, I don't know about this individual and this case and neither do you, but HiPointDem makes a valid point that this case, like the "terrorist plot" to blow up the Sears Tower, smacks of a staged event to frighten the sheeple at a convenient time. Left to their own devices, these people could not hope to carry out anything like this.

Real terrorists have all the will and resources they need to do actual terrorism. They don't have to go on the internet to apply for a job with al-Qaeda.

Quit being a rube. You're making it that much harder for everybody else.

That'll get your point across really well and put me in my place huh?

I know full well the things our government has done. I don't think they are great conspiracies. Just because some reporter digs something up and puts a modern spin on it doesn't make it a conspiracy.

Where do you suppose terrorists get those unlimited resources they need to commit terrorist acts? Do they just fall out of the sky? You don't think they need help from anyone? Ha I suppose you think terrorists don't try to hide what they do either so we don't have to look for them.

You can call me whatever you want, that's cool. I don't have blind faith or fear of our government, or of other people's opinions. And I am not paranoid that our government is out to get me. I have and hold dear my opinions and my right to express them. I'm sorry you don't like them but no amount of name calling is going to change my opinions in any way.

I was merely pointing out that you make the same argument that has been made forever, and allows the perverse to reign. Enjoy the world you helped to create.

We'll just be over here avoiding the mess and waiting for reality to come to your door. Again.

That's a dismissive laugh... I learned that from VP, Joe Biden.

why is the fbi always the procurer of explosives & weapons for these terror plots?

and why would al qaida need to use poor illiterate blacks & pakistani students to do their dirty work?

What is it you meant by:

"... illiterate black men and students, potential terrorists all.

there's a word for it."


I think if you give it some honest thought you might reach a reasonable conclusion as to why al qaida would use other to do their dirty work.

If there is a name for it, just say it. Really this is getting petty.

the fbi was the 'facilitator' -- by suggesting targets and supplying the weapons.

You just want to be right? Great. Now that we have that settled we'll just have to agree to disagree.

it's 11 years since 911, where is the evidence that 'al qaida' has any interest at all in doing anything in the us?

it wouldn't be that difficult to do if they actually wanted to.

'those types of people' -- you mean, stupid big-mouthed people?

yeah, we can all rest easy.

You think because there hasn't been any terrorist attacks lately we should just stop looking for those who would commit them. I disagree.

'Those types of people', in the context of the post you replied to = potential terrorists.

Oh wait, did you want me to name a terrorist act that recruited poor unsuspecting students to do their bidding? LOL, ridiculous question. I'm not involved in terrorist activities so I cannot possibly know how they find people who are willing to blow themselves up for their cause. But it stands to reason they find these people somewhere because we all know it happens. I think it is reasonable to suspect that if they become aware of a person who is reaching out to them that said person may be someone they'd want to recruit. Apparently I'm not the only one who thinks so.

into the World Trade Center.

for a long time. well done.

blow something up.

the explosives.

and do.

i think that was my point, in case you missed it.

and those who oppose it are always righteous.

uncovered beforehand has had the fingerprints of the fbi & police all over it. to my knowledge.

the alleged perps were mostly 1) poor minorities; 2) very young.

iow, not criminal masterminds & without the resources & connections to carry out any large-scale 'terror plot' on their own, w/o help from -- the fbi & the police.

who are always johnny-on-the-spot.

and attempted to murder a few thousand people?

What happens is this: the young man comes to the country with the intent of blowing shit up. Gets on the Internet looking for al-Qaeda. Finds who he thinks is al-Qaeda. Constructs what he thinks is a massive bomb. Parks it in front of a building in NYC, hoping to kill a bunch of people, collapse the financial system, and throw the country into anarchy. Tries to set it off.

And you have sympathy for this little shit? In your scenario, you say the FBI tells him to put up or shut up. You place the blame on the FBI and say it's their fault because they goaded him into trying to be a mass murderer. Well, guess what?

In your scenario, he had the option to shut up. Why didn't he? You say he was goaded by the FBI? Well, what the fuck do you think that al-Qaeda does, if not goad young men into terrorism? He proved himself willing to commit a horrific act of mass murder. Nothing else matters, if you ask me.

Piss and vinegar. OMG, how contemptible. Another angry young man, "full of piss and vinegar", parked a truck full of explosives in front of a Federal building, and here's what happened:



Maybe you ought to go visit the memorial and get a little fucking perspective.

suppositions based on such. You say that he was taking shit from someone, making fun of his nationality, etc. How the fuck do YOU know? You don't is the answer. And even if that's true, so what? You just made up at narrative to fit what you want. I hate that stupid shit.

The FACT is you don't know what happened and neither do I.

Entrapment is something else entirely. It's when YOU, a law enforcement officer, approach someone (not the other way around), and YOU bring up the criminal idea, and YOU get the other person to agree to YOUR idea.

That's not what happened here, according to the story I heard on the news.

What you hear on the news is not always the complete truth.

anonymous, almost certainly uninformed person is almost never the complete truth.

That's where I read the story. I formed my own opinion based on how these "stings" usually go down. I'm anonymous here on DU, but hardly ever uninformed.

opinion.

Make up your mind.

There is nothing in the news story that supports your opinion. All that supports your opinion is your opinion.

Hopefully, you haven't forgotten them, have you? The FACT that it was the Al Queda
"facilitator" that got him the fake explosives. The FACT that, in these stings, these facilitators' roles often cross the line and they end up pushing the "terrorist" into doing things that they wouldn't normally consider. For instance, the kids in Cleveland were going to push over some big signs, and the "facilitator" pushed them into considering blowing up a bridge! This kind of shit has happened over and over again, and you tell me that there are no facts to support my opinion?

Especially the FACT that this man actively sought out al queda...


Ignoring facts that do not support our opinions is a sure-fire way to form an ignorant opinion, IMO.

Ever heard the phrase, "Ye shall know them by their fruit"? When these guys turn out "fruit" that is rotten, time and time again, and these cases get dismissed, the "perpetrators" get acquitted, or they end in mistrials, that should tell you something. The New York Times did a couple of pieces on this, as a matter of fact. You should read them:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/17/us/17terror.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/16/nyregion/16terror.html?pagewanted=all&gwh=B9D91B3BF566FF5ED5D12AEB3811D2CC

And, the Guardian has also done a piece, on this same topic:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/nov/16/fbi-entrapment-fake-terror-plots

And that reeks of hypocrisy. On your part. You feeling me?

Don't you? It's a little telling, I think, that these kids are always "facilitated" by undercover FBI agents. ALWAYS.

building?

we don't get to hear the provocateur's part in that conversation.

and entrapment are two different things.

You make it sound like he would have been just as happy blowing up some fireworks, except for the feds pushing and prodding him to act out with bigger and better plans.

I doubt he would have done ANYTHING. He has been a student in this country for a while, without having done ANYTHING. I am making it sound exactly like it probably was: he would have done nothing if he had not been prodded and pushed to act out with bigger and better plans. Who, after all, got him the "bomb"?

I understand a healthy dose of skepticism when it comes to the feds, but I've got a hella dose of doubt when it comes to guys who think they're parking a truck full of explosives outside of a nearby bldg hoping its going to go off and cause mayhem. There's absolutely no reason to assume he meant no harm even if there's good reason to distrust what officials are claiming the story to be.

Almost without fail, these "terrorists" that they catch are very young, very unrealistic, and are without actual Al-Queda people to help them. In fact, while these "terrorists" are SUPPOSEDLY going about trying to FIND someone from a terrorist organization to help them, they run into these FBI "facilitators" who take them right up to the wire, suggest blowing up this edifice, or that bridge, or something, and even supply them with the (albeit fake) hardware to do it.

Look up the Liberty City Seven. Same shit happened with them. Many of them were acquitted. "Deputy Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation John S. Pistole described the group's plot as more "aspirational than operational"; the group did not have the means to carry out attacks on such targets. The group had no weapons and did not seek weapons when they were offered. The group had no communication with any actual al-Qaeda or other terrorist operatives."

Same thing with the Occupy Wall Street "terrorists" in Cleveland. "Taking a closer look at the federal complaint against the five men reveals that although the suspects are believed to have expressed anti-government sentiments and disdain for major financial corporations, the impetus in the would-be bombing was the urging of undercover agents that had infiltrated a group of friends and encouraged them to consider acts of terrorism. Although the incident is still developing, federal authorities have submitted statements and recordings stemming from conversations their contacts had with the alleged terrorists, and unsurprisingly the mainstream media is largely ignoring one key problem with the federal probe: the FBI provoked members of an Occupy Wall Street off-shoot to embrace terrorist-like crimes despite voicing from the start that they were opposed to such."

And if he had actually FOUND someone from a terrorist organization who was willing to help him, it's quite apparent that he would have gone through with his little plot.

The bottom line here is that the feds didn't go out to lure him into doing something he otherwise would not have done. HE was looking for someone to facilitate his plan and there are a bunch of people who are damned lucky that the "terrorists" he found were the feds or there would have been body parts strewn all over the place.

Do you understand why I put it, in my post, in all caps?

You seem to enjoy constructing your own backstory around situations like this without any facts, other than those in your imagination, to support it. That's fine if it amuses you, but don't be so surprised when other people don't rush to buy into your flights of fancy just because you want them to.

Have a pleasant night.

What surprises me is when they are surprised when it turns out to be the same old story. And, you know why it turns out to be the same old story? Because THAT'S how these people, and their "stings" operate.

They're always the ones MOST surprised when the majority of these things turn into mistrials, acquittals, and just plain wastes of our taxpayer dollars.

dollars? Please post the proof of what you claim, so far, Govt. has a pretty damn good conviction record of these stings.
Your support of the POS terrorist is very disturbing to say the least.

I'll give you a little headstart: Look at the Liberty City Seven, and tell me how well THAT turned out for the government.

the onus is upon you to back up what you say.
This whole entrapment argument by you is pure bullshit, the FBI didn't come looking for this man, he came to them thinking they were AQ, he had every opportunity to back out and he didn't, he even tried to detonate the fake bomb with a cell phone, thank god it was a fake bomb.
I applaud the FBI for their work in protecting our nation against such terrorists as this man and your defense of this terrorist is offensive and disturbing to say the least.

Like I said, I'm not doing your homework for you.

I applaud the FBI for doing REAL work on this problem. NOT for entrapping people who would otherwise have not engaged in this type of behavior if it were not for their agents' urging and help.

You are aware that there are many sources for research, correct?

Edited to add: And, by the way, why shouldn't I give you sources from media that you, yourself, give credence to?

You disparage the MSM in one post as untrustworthy, and yet in another post, you use the MSM as a source for you larger argument. That IS the definition of hypocrisy.

So, let's see......if I give you something outside of mainstream media to support my point of view, you will reject it because it's not from mainstream media.

If I give you something from mainstream media to support my point of view, I must be a hypocrite.

Wow. Why go through this exchange at all then? Why don't you just close your eyes, stick your fingers in your ears, and yell, "Lalalalalalalalala!"?

If you will recall, I told you to do your own homework. Then, you accused me of not having any sources. So, I gave you some, and you decided that you would call me a hypocrite becaise I gave you mainstream sources. But, of course, if they weren't mainstream, then they wouldn't be good enough for you.

YOU are the one who asked for sources that, presumably, YOU could rely on. Like I said, wow. Just wow.

Go ahead, now, and put your fingers back in your ears.

You don't even know who you are talking to, or what conversation you are having. No wonder in one post, use disparage the MSM, and in another, claim they are a valid source.




This has been fun, but I'm bored with you now. When you are unable to even keep your discussions straight, you are in too deep. Let me help you by leaving you to your hypocrisy.

Have a nice day.

Unbelievable.

The story, reported by a journalist, stated that he came from Bangladesh for this purpose. He can refute that in Court.

He will get his day in Court. If he's a terrorist, that is more than he was going to give thousands of innocent people.

You don't seem to understand entrapment. Maybe watch some of those true crime shows on TV, where there are tapes of people commissioning people to kill other people. The agents who catch them are well schooled on what crosses the line and what not to do, what constitutes entrapment.

This guy was on the internt and such. I'm guessing there's an objective evidence trail.

Righttttt. In January, to Missouri. So many big targets in Missouri, too, right?

Geez.

We should spend our time infiltrating THESE groups, militiamen, instead of enticing young kids to engage in terrorism. The New York Times had an editorital on this: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/29/opinion/sunday/terrorist-plots-helped-along-by-the-fbi.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

So did Mother Jones. I would suggest that you read them.

That, in my opinion, IS the point. Why are we spending all of these resources instigating terrorists plots so that we can entrap someone who probably would never do something like that, to begin with, without encouragement from the FBI "facilitators" when we can spend our resources infiltrating people who are ALREADY engaged in this kind of activity, and stop another Oklahoma City tragedy?

Some people have a personal reality-rejection field....

St. Louis, and Kansas City. I am a cop in MO. and I well know the targets in this state. This man was not entrapped, he willingly went looking for for help in perpetrating a terrorist act, his problem was that he's a dumbass. He showed every intent of blowing up the that building and creating massive casualties, he had every opportunity to back out and he didn't, he was a very willing participant and I find your sympathy for this POS quite disturbing.

How old does one have to be before being held responsible for trying to commit mass murder?

If one is mentally coherent enough to obtain a student visa, one is mentally competent to be held responsible for their actions.

Stop. Defending. Murderers. Or even those who merely want to be murderers. It's fucking vile.

is doing everyone a disservice.

Entrapment is getting someone to do something they ordinarily wouldn't do.

Like if a cop told someone - as a cop - "No one is using that car. Go ahead and take it, you won't get in any trouble" and then arrested the person after they got in the car.

A cop offering drugs to someone and them agreeing isn't entrapment.

if there was in these cases -- how, exactly?

planned to commit a crime. If that's true, it makes an entrapment defense very difficult. Even if the FBI agent encouraged him, he'd already made the decision on his own to do it.

that's the whole case, the provocateurs.

personal experience with media lying gives me little faith in their 'stories' about anything controversial.

You can bet that the Govt. recorded everything, audio and video, so don't be surprised when this young man is convicted or he takes a plea deal because the Govt's evidence against him is so overwhelming that his lawyer will try to get the best deal possible.

That they didn't record everything? That this young man won't be convicted? This young man won't take a plea deal?

I worked a lot of stings when I was working Vice and Narcotics, we recorded everything, and I mean everything, and because of those recordings, the defendants would usually take a plea deal.

is because the evidence is so compelling that he will take a plea deal. If the young man decides to take his chances on a trial and jury, then we will find out, however, it's been my experience that once the defendant is presented with the evidence against them, they will usually take a deal.

I'm just telling you from my experiences in LE that this is what usually happens. Something of this magnitude would be recorded and all the i's are dotted and the t's are crossed.

Only bust 'em after they kill dozens.

They caught someone in my city who was going to do a terror act as well by a sting. The more these wanna-be terrorists don't know who to trust when they try to make contacts and do their plots, the better. It's a good thing to get these idiots in a paranoid state of mind, more chance they will fuck up that way.

Real people could have been killed. He was prevented from acting out his intentions by law enforcement. That is not entrapment. That is good police work.

And there is no way I would consider that entrapment.

Because NOW, you're changing the subject. You asked me, originally, if they should have let him go through with the terrorist attack, and let people be killed. What you apparently missed, when you "read" the article, was that he wasn't using real explosives.

It is entrapment. When you con someone into doing something that they hadn't had in mind to do in the first place, it's entrapment. When you take someone who is merely running their loud mouth and provide them with everything, including encouragement, that they need to commit the crime, you are entrapping them.

That does not mean I am stupid. Deal with it.

And, by the way, no one called you stupid. What are you talking about?

Forgive me if I took that as an implied insult to my intelligence. I should have realized it was only my literacy you were doubting.

That, being that you didn't seem to realize that the explosives that this kid had were fake ones. Anyone actually reading the article would have known that. You did not know it, so I assumed you had not read the article.

And I am certain that was not entrapment.

Either a judge or a jury will decide. But, once again, this wasn't the issue when you first wrote your comments. You said that had the "terrorist" been allowed to continue, he would have blown up something or somebody with the explosives that he had (and, yes, I'm paraphrasing you). Once again, you could not have read the article at the time of that post or you would have known that the explosives were fake.

And then search for him, arrest him, and grant him a $100,000 bail, but leave him his passport (after all it is HIS isn't it).

You are totally ignorant.

Oh Please!