The FBI, Occupy Wall Street, and Entrapment - Page 2

RandFan · 16th May 2012, 11:16 AM

Originally Posted by Brainster

CIA? I assume you mean FBI? And do you think Nixon was behind every asinine and paranoid FBI action in his era?

That too. Nixon used whatever asset he felt would get the job done (though CIA was not a particularly good choice I concede but there is evidence that the CIA was involved with the Plumbers see below). But I would actually say that it was the Plumbers that did most of the dirty work and I don't think any of them were active FBI. At the time of their arrest. Liddy was ex FBI and Hunt was ex CIA.

Nixon need not have been behind every FBI action to have used them to further his own asinine and paranoid schemes though. Do you have evidence that Obama is doing as Nixon did?

Originally Posted by wiki

Another member of the group was its liaison to the CIA, John Paisley. In recent years Paisley's involvement has led to speculation the CIA had a far greater hand in the operations of the Plumbers than originally thought at the time.

NoZed Avenger · 16th May 2012, 12:50 PM

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

However the reality is that the law enforcement budget is finite, and every dollar spent grooming fake terrorists is money not spent doing something useful.

But that is a wholly different argument, and one that I think is a far better criticism of the process/strategy.

Checkmite · 16th May 2012, 01:14 PM

Originally Posted by Brainster

Let me just say, too, that this part of the Rolling Stone article does highlight what seems on its face to be a bizarre decision:

Mass stabbing would be a state/local crime, not a Federal one. Blowing up a highway bridge, on the other hand...

Kevin_Lowe · 16th May 2012, 04:23 PM

Originally Posted by Puppycow

It should be obvious. Kevin_Lowe looked into his crystal ball and concluded that these people would almost certainly be "totally harmless" if left to their own devices. Tim McVeigh is a counter example.

Do you think you could unpack your reasoning process there for us? Because it looks to me like you're arguing "real terrorists exist, therefore you can't prove that a fake terrorist wouldn't have turned into a real terrorist, therefore we should make fake terrorists and arrest them".

Quote:

I don't pretend to have a crystal ball.
But I do observe that so far, there has not been a major successful terrorist attack in the US since the FBI has been using these tactics. Have we just been lucky, or is the policy perhaps more effective at preventing terrorist attacks than critics would like to admit?

I don't pretend to have a crystal ball, but I do have a magic rock that keeps tigers away. Have you just been lucky, or is my rock perhaps more effective at preventing tiger attacks than you would like to admit?

Has it occurred to you that cause and effect might run the opposite way, and that the FBI is grooming fake terrorists because there is a total lack of real, major terrorist attackers left in the USA to justify their anti-terrorism budget?

BenBurch · 16th May 2012, 04:27 PM

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

...

Has it occurred to you that cause and effect might run the opposite way, and that the FBI is grooming fake terrorists because there is a total lack of real, major terrorist attackers left in the USA to justify their anti-terrorism budget?

That is almost the dumbest thing I have seen posted here.

There is NO dearth of real terrorists at all.

The Central Scrutinizer · 16th May 2012, 04:52 PM

Originally Posted by BenBurch

That is almost the dumbest thing I have seen posted here.

Agreed.

Kevin_Lowe · 16th May 2012, 05:05 PM

Originally Posted by BenBurch

That is almost the dumbest thing I have seen posted here.

There is NO dearth of real terrorists at all.

No, seriously, it's safe to come out from under the blankets now.

...

Oh, okay, stay under there as long as you like.

MG1962 · 16th May 2012, 05:19 PM

Originally Posted by Axiom_Blade

So why isn't the FBI targeting them, like they are the left-wing groups?

Depends where the groups are in their cycle - The right wing militants were under the gun - about 5 - 8 years ago. Now they are in a reorganizing phase, and probably wont radicalize till more charismatic leaders come through

BenBurch · 16th May 2012, 05:31 PM

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

No, seriously, it's safe to come out from under the blankets now.

...

Oh, okay, stay under there as long as you like.

OK, so those printer cartridges weren't bombs, and Dr. George Tiller is still alive, then?

The Central Scrutinizer · 16th May 2012, 06:09 PM

Originally Posted by BenBurch

OK, so those printer cartridges weren't bombs, and Dr. George Tiller is still alive, then?

How dare you cause such confusion by introducing facts!

Brainster · 16th May 2012, 06:37 PM

Originally Posted by RandFan

That too. Nixon used whatever asset he felt would get the job done (though CIA was not a particularly good choice I concede but there is evidence that the CIA was involved with the Plumbers see below). But I would actually say that it was the Plumbers that did most of the dirty work and I don't think any of them were active FBI. At the time of their arrest. Liddy was ex FBI and Hunt was ex CIA.

Nixon need not have been behind every FBI action to have used them to further his own asinine and paranoid schemes though. Do you have evidence that Obama is doing as Nixon did?

Did you read the whole page on Paisley? There are, to say the least, some pretty big red flags that's a kook page. Wiki is not immune to those.

RandFan · 16th May 2012, 06:53 PM

Originally Posted by Brainster

Did you read the whole page on Paisley? There are, to say the least, some pretty big red flags that's a kook page. Wiki is not immune to those.

I'm not seeing a whole lot of red flags. It hints at some conspiracy with the JFK assassination and cover up of documents and Paisley's continued work for the CIA, but I'm not pushing any grand CT. In fact, I'm not pushing anything but to say Paisley was CIA (as was Hunt) and there is some evidence that the connections might be incidental back scratching or nothing.

Juniversal · 16th May 2012, 06:55 PM

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

Has it occurred to you that cause and effect might run the opposite way, and that the FBI is grooming fake terrorists because there is a total lack of real, major terrorist attackers left in the USA to justify their anti-terrorism budget?

The conspiracy section is THAT way...>

crimresearch · 16th May 2012, 07:15 PM

Originally Posted by Juniversal

The conspiracy section is THAT way...>

Some posts bring the CT section to you... Whether you want it or not.

BStrong · 16th May 2012, 07:56 PM

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

Do you think you could unpack your reasoning process there for us? Because it looks to me like you're arguing "real terrorists exist, therefore you can't prove that a fake terrorist wouldn't have turned into a real terrorist, therefore we should make fake terrorists and arrest them".

I don't pretend to have a crystal ball, but I do have a magic rock that keeps tigers away. Have you just been lucky, or is my rock perhaps more effective at preventing tiger attacks than you would like to admit?

Has it occurred to you that cause and effect might run the opposite way, and that the FBI is grooming fake terrorists because there is a total lack of real, major terrorist attackers left in the USA to justify their anti-terrorism budget?

So, in your view, the FBI simply finds groups of harmless idiots, tempts them with gifts of bang and boom that they are powerless to resist, and then reaps the benefits of these poor harmless souls being arrested on terrorism charges?

I don't know anything about the laws in your country, but here in the U.S., under federal law there are strict laws regulating participating CI (Confidential Informant) conduct during an investigation - they can not "make" the conspiracy or crime charged- the CI can not invent on their own an association of individuals engaged in a criminal act and then prosecute said individuals for their behavior.

Simple example: an individual CI insinuates themselves into an existing motorcycle club and then is involved in a countinuing criminal enterprise involving those individuals.

Solid investigation, possible convictions.

CI forms motorcycle club, forments a continuing criminal enterprise, and supplies contrban to the members.

No go.

The F.B.I. in the instances detailed did not form these groups out of thin air, their guy fit into an existing environment where criminal activity was discussed and considered, and they then (to one extent or another)furthered the existing criminal conduct entered into by the other actors.

It's really no different from many cases where individuals seek to hire an individual to carry out a murder - the CI plays the part of a contract killer, they document the process of the plan and arrest and charge the individual attempting to hire the killer for Conspiracy to Commit Murder - the fact that the individual didn't plan to commit the act themselves or have the ability to find an actual professional murderer doesn't mean that they haven't engaged in criminal conduct.

Kevin_Lowe · 16th May 2012, 07:57 PM

Originally Posted by BenBurch

OK, so those printer cartridges weren't bombs, and Dr. George Tiller is still alive, then?

Okay, look, stay under those covers. But while you are there let's pretend we're two rational skeptics, and play the Falsification Game.

What would count to you as evidence that would falsify the theory that these Cinderella stings make you safer?

Kevin_Lowe · 16th May 2012, 08:14 PM

Originally Posted by BStrong

So, in your view, the FBI simply finds groups of harmless idiots, tempts them with gifts of bang and boom that they are powerless to resist, and then reaps the benefits of these poor harmless souls being arrested on terrorism charges?

I think that whenever a person feels the temptation to start a sentence with "so, in your view" or "it seems to me you are saying" and then follow it up with an idiotic straw man argument that they should walk away from the computer instead and come back after they've relaxed and smelled some flowers or something.

Quote:

I don't know anything about the laws in your country, but here in the U.S., under federal law there are strict laws regulating participating CI (Confidential Informant) conduct during an investigation - they can not "make" the conspiracy or crime charged- the CI can not invent on their own an association of individuals engaged in a criminal act and then prosecute said individuals for their behavior.

Simple example: an individual CI insinuates themselves into an existing motorcycle club and then is involved in a countinuing criminal enterprise involving those individuals.

Solid investigation, possible convictions.

CI forms motorcycle club, forments a continuing criminal enterprise, and supplies contrban to the members.

No go.

The F.B.I. in the instances detailed did not form these groups out of thin air, their guy fit into an existing environment where criminal activity was discussed and considered, and they then (to one extent or another)furthered the existing criminal conduct entered into by the other actors.

Indeed, they are carefully stepping around the laws enacted to stop law enforcement agents grooming criminals instead of catching them. However they've found a new grooming method to achieve exactly that goal which isn't currently illegal, and that loophole could do with closing.

Quote:

It's really no different from many cases where individuals seek to hire an individual to carry out a murder - the CI plays the part of a contract killer, they document the process of the plan and arrest and charge the individual attempting to hire the killer for Conspiracy to Commit Murder - the fact that the individual didn't plan to commit the act themselves or have the ability to find an actual professional murderer doesn't mean that they haven't engaged in criminal conduct.

On the contrary, it's totally different.

If Joe Idiot decided to blow up a bridge, and without any outside assistance obtained the materials and the detonators and was all ready to go, great, bust them.

On the other hand if Joe Idiot fantasises about blowing up a bridge but is not going to actually do it, and has no prospects of successfully doing so without coming to the attention of the authorities, playing Fairy Godmother and magically providing them with prop C4, prop detonators and so on is creating a crime that would never have existed without the Fairy Godmother.

They recruit relatively harmless idiots who are at worst on a path to get themselves busted for trying to illegally obtain something, and ratchet up the charges until they can bust them for trying to blow up Christmas. The net result is nobody is any safer, but idiots remain scared of the terrorists under the bed and the FBI keeps their budget.

If that makes us safer, why stop there? Let's give someone a fake underwater base, a fake army of minions, a fake nuclear warhead and a fake piranha pool. Then when they launch the warhead we could all yell "surprise!" and charge them with trying to destroy the world. How safe would we be then?

The Central Scrutinizer · 16th May 2012, 09:07 PM

Originally Posted by Juniversal

The conspiracy section is THAT way...>

It's next to the "Bush stole the 2004 election" thread.

Virus · 16th May 2012, 09:39 PM

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

I think that whenever a person feels the temptation to start a sentence with "so, in your view" or "it seems to me you are saying" and then follow it up with an idiotic straw man argument that they should walk away from the computer instead and come back after they've relaxed and smelled some flowers or something.

That is what you're saying though. You just don't like it when it's put back to you bluntly.

casebro · 16th May 2012, 09:42 PM

Originally Posted by BenBurch

That is almost the dumbest thing I have seen posted here.

There is NO dearth of real terrorists at all.

We are talking DOMESTIC terrorism here. Which just has not actually happening.

Terrorism is just soooo easy to commit that if some group wanted to, it would be happening. Daily. No FBI assistance needed. Hunting rifles at sporting events. Suicide truckers taking out bridge pilings. Gasoline bombs. It just isn't happening, ergo there are no terrorists.

Oh, we have the occasional whacky individual that I'd call a mass murderer, not a terrorist. But not large groups with rockets and bombs. No successful 'cells'. Which leaves me two choices: Either there ain't none. Or the BIG CT: it happens all the time, but gets covered up. Only the busts hit the news, while secret Gulags are overflowing with radicals who have actually succeeded. All kept secret under the Patriot Act. And all done to foster public confidence.

I just can't believe the FBI is totally, 100%, completely efficient at catching the bad guys. Much more believable that there are NO bad guys except the doofus ones the FBI entraps.

Virus · 16th May 2012, 10:18 PM

Originally Posted by BenBurch

That is almost the dumbest thing I have seen posted here.

There is NO dearth of real terrorists at all.

Originally Posted by casebro

We are talking DOMESTIC terrorism here. Which just has not actually happening.

Terrorism is just soooo easy to commit that if some group wanted to, it would be happening. Daily. No FBI assistance needed. Hunting rifles at sporting events. Suicide truckers taking out bridge pilings. Gasoline bombs. It just isn't happening, ergo there are no terrorists.

Oh, we have the occasional whacky individual that I'd call a mass murderer, not a terrorist. But not large groups with rockets and bombs. No successful 'cells'. Which leaves me two choices: Either there ain't none. Or the BIG CT: it happens all the time, but gets covered up. Only the busts hit the news, while secret Gulags are overflowing with radicals who have actually succeeded. All kept secret under the Patriot Act. And all done to foster public confidence.

I just can't believe the FBI is totally, 100%, completely efficient at catching the bad guys. Much more believable that there are NO bad guys except the doofus ones the FBI entraps.

Upping your ante of dumbest things ever posted.

Mycroft · 16th May 2012, 10:34 PM

Originally Posted by casebro

We are talking DOMESTIC terrorism here. Which just has not actually happening.

Terrorism is just soooo easy to commit that if some group wanted to, it would be happening. Daily. No FBI assistance needed. Hunting rifles at sporting events. Suicide truckers taking out bridge pilings. Gasoline bombs. It just isn't happening, ergo there are no terrorists.

Oh, we have the occasional whacky individual that I'd call a mass murderer, not a terrorist. But not large groups with rockets and bombs. No successful 'cells'. Which leaves me two choices: Either there ain't none. Or the BIG CT: it happens all the time, but gets covered up. Only the busts hit the news, while secret Gulags are overflowing with radicals who have actually succeeded. All kept secret under the Patriot Act. And all done to foster public confidence.

I just can't believe the FBI is totally, 100%, completely efficient at catching the bad guys. Much more believable that there are NO bad guys except the doofus ones the FBI entraps.

It's not much, agreed. Possibly due to the diligence of our law enforcement agencies, but it's not true that it's not happening either.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrori...d_States#2000s

portlandatheist · 16th May 2012, 11:16 PM

This whole thread is ridiculous. The FBI's job is to find terrorists and protect the safety of the public. Does it make any difference if terrorists are motivated by right wing agendas, left wing agendas, or even if their objective is good such as to protect endangered species, stop AIDS, etc.? No, the objective and politics of the terrorists are totally and utterly irrelevant. The only thing that matters is the existential threat they pose to the public regardless of their motivation. This thread is flirting dangerously with the "one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter" mentality.
When it comes to a terrorist like Mohamed Osman Mohamud, he was absolutely and completely dedicated to Jihad. Without the FBI's "help", he probably wouldn't have been able to acquire a large truck bomb able to kill more people than 9/11 which he aspired to do but there's no doubt he would have killed as many people as he possibly could given his means which, if we had been lucky and had not have had the FBI's help, would probably only be a few dozen people killed instead in the best case scenario.
The sympathy for this piece of **** is totally misguided as is the criticism of the FBI. The FBI doesn't care what religion or politics this ******* has, but only the existential threat that he presents. The amount of human lives that have been saved by this sting alone we'll never know for sure but we can assume that many valuable human lives have been saved by their actions and for that we owe them our gratitude.
I simply don't understand the desire to look at terrorists via the lens of their grievances. Consider the Norway attacks, you're an idiot if you think the root cause was "multiculturalism and liberalism" of which the perpetrator claims as his motivation. It's as stupid as saying domestic violence is caused by burnt pot roast or 9/11 was due to misguided US foreign policy or the Rajneeshee attacks were due to misguided zoning laws.
Seriously, the FBI is simply doing its job here. Its not entrapment and it has nothing to do with left versus right politics.

000063 · 17th May 2012, 04:31 AM

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

I think that whenever a person feels the temptation to start a sentence with "so, in your view" or "it seems to me you are saying" and then follow it up with an idiotic straw man argument that they should walk away from the computer instead and come back after they've relaxed and smelled some flowers or something.
...

You do not actually say that the BStrong's summary of your position is wrong, I note. In fact, you make no specific reference to that part of his post at all. You just make a generalized statement about "people" who post what you call straw men starting with "so, in your view" or "it seems to me you are saying".

You're evading.

000063 · 17th May 2012, 04:40 AM

Originally Posted by portlandatheist

... It's as stupid as saying domestic violence is caused by burnt pot roast or 9/11 was due to misguided US foreign policy or the Rajneeshee attacks were due to misguided zoning laws.
Seriously, the FBI is simply doing its job here. Its not entrapment and it has nothing to do with left versus right politics.

I've seen on this very subforum people say exactly that. They also argued that the Taliban suicide bombing is America's fault because it is a reasonable consequence of the Afghan war. When I asked if Osama is responsible for the Afghan war because it was a reasonable consequence of 9/11, he ignored the question. When I ask him how far back these responsibility chains start, he doesn't answer.

WildCat · 17th May 2012, 06:05 AM

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

Okay, look, stay under those covers. But while you are there let's pretend we're two rational skeptics, and play the Falsification Game.

What would count to you as evidence that would falsify the theory that these Cinderella stings make you safer?

I'm so sorry your heros got caught trying to blow up a bridge.

Sucks to be them!

BStrong · 17th May 2012, 06:27 AM

A anecdote from my past.

In the 1980's, I was a principal of a company that was a licensed SOT - Special Occupational Taxpayer - we were licensed by the Feds. & St. to manufacture and sell National Firearms Act weapons and devices - MG's and sound suppressors.

I was contacted by an individual who by way of introducing themselves referenced a friend in common. This individual claimed to have like experience and interests.

This individual then went on to explain to me that he was part of a group that was tasked (covertly) with investigating the possible presence of American M.I.A.'s in Laos.

He wanted me to provide him and his group with weapons and devices - off the books - that he and said group would then use in their mission. A violation of both Fed and St. law.

I thanked him for his interest, and then threw his ass right the **** out of my office.

I then contacted my attorney, discussed the incident on the record, and wrote up a memo to file detailing everything about the conversation.

My attorney then contacted the F.B.I., and arranged an interview for me to discuss the incident.

That is what one does when they are operating legally and above board.

Hearing a "fantasy" about criminal activity involving violence or the destruction of property and not reporting it puts one into the possible position of being charged with being an accessory to the crime being discussed.

Mycroft · 17th May 2012, 11:35 AM

Originally Posted by BStrong

Hearing a "fantasy" about criminal activity involving violence or the destruction of property and not reporting it puts one into the possible position of being charged with being an accessory to the crime being discussed.

Playing devil's advocate for a moment, how many people know that?

You work(ed) in a position where you have certain legal responsibilities, but what's the responsibility of someone standing in a crowd of people protesting something listening to other talk crap?

casebro · 17th May 2012, 02:40 PM

Originally Posted by Mycroft

It's not much, agreed. Possibly due to the diligence of our law enforcement agencies, but it's not true that it's not happening either.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrori...d_States#2000s

I scanned those items. Many were done by individuals, many were done by foreign assassins with one other foreigner as the target.

The definition of terrorism is an act meant to intimidate the general population. Unabomer was only after hi-techers, and only killed three. McVeigh only pulled off one act. 911, yes. A whacko committing suicide at the Statue of Liberty, is a lone whacko, not a Terrorist. Even if he does take others with him.

I think that list proves my point, that it is easy to commit acts of mass murder without FBI assistance. It also proves that it is very rare. All proof of my concept.

Mass murders are getting more rare, even among whackos.

PS, I looked a little closer. Since 2000, the only group that blew anybody up was the 911 airplane attack. All the rest were done by individuals or property damage only. NOT ONE SINGLE CELL has done any terrorism.

Hey, has the FBI stung any wannabe pilots? "Pssst, wanna buy a hot 747?"

Matter of fact, one could interpret this all as "Since Iraq II as our response to 911, there have been NO acts of foreign terrorism on U.S. soil."

crimresearch · 17th May 2012, 10:45 PM

Quote:

The definition of terrorism is an act meant to intimidate the general population

That is a definition... and not a particularly useful one.

16th May 2012, 11:16 AM	#41
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,417	Originally Posted by Brainster CIA? I assume you mean FBI? And do you think Nixon was behind every asinine and paranoid FBI action in his era? That too. Nixon used whatever asset he felt would get the job done (though CIA was not a particularly good choice I concede but there is evidence that the CIA was involved with the Plumbers see below). But I would actually say that it was the Plumbers that did most of the dirty work and I don't think any of them were active FBI. At the time of their arrest. Liddy was ex FBI and Hunt was ex CIA. Nixon need not have been behind every FBI action to have used them to further his own asinine and paranoid schemes though. Do you have evidence that Obama is doing as Nixon did? Originally Posted by wiki Another member of the group was its liaison to the CIA, John Paisley. In recent years Paisley's involvement has led to speculation the CIA had a far greater hand in the operations of the Plumbers than originally thought at the time.
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith Last edited by RandFan; 16th May 2012 at 11:23 AM.

16th May 2012, 12:50 PM	#42
NoZed Avenger Bitter Whiner Join Date: Apr 2002 Posts: 11,313	Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe However the reality is that the law enforcement budget is finite, and every dollar spent grooming fake terrorists is money not spent doing something useful. But that is a wholly different argument, and one that I think is a far better criticism of the process/strategy.
	__________________ [This Space Available. PM for Rates.]

16th May 2012, 01:14 PM	#43
Checkmite Skepticifimisticalationist Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Third in line Posts: 14,896	Originally Posted by Brainster Let me just say, too, that this part of the Rolling Stone article does highlight what seems on its face to be a bizarre decision: Mass stabbing would be a state/local crime, not a Federal one. Blowing up a highway bridge, on the other hand...
	__________________ "¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD? ¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?" --- Carlos S., 2002

16th May 2012, 04:23 PM	#44
Kevin_Lowe Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Queensland Posts: 10,285	Originally Posted by Puppycow It should be obvious. Kevin_Lowe looked into his crystal ball and concluded that these people would almost certainly be "totally harmless" if left to their own devices. Tim McVeigh is a counter example. Do you think you could unpack your reasoning process there for us? Because it looks to me like you're arguing "real terrorists exist, therefore you can't prove that a fake terrorist wouldn't have turned into a real terrorist, therefore we should make fake terrorists and arrest them". Quote: I don't pretend to have a crystal ball. But I do observe that so far, there has not been a major successful terrorist attack in the US since the FBI has been using these tactics. Have we just been lucky, or is the policy perhaps more effective at preventing terrorist attacks than critics would like to admit? I don't pretend to have a crystal ball, but I do have a magic rock that keeps tigers away. Have you just been lucky, or is my rock perhaps more effective at preventing tiger attacks than you would like to admit? Has it occurred to you that cause and effect might run the opposite way, and that the FBI is grooming fake terrorists because there is a total lack of real, major terrorist attackers left in the USA to justify their anti-terrorism budget?
	__________________ Thinking is skilled work....People with untrained minds should no more expect to think clearly and logically than people who have never learned and never practiced can expect to find themselves good carpenters, golfers, bridge-players, or pianists. -- Alfred Mander

16th May 2012, 04:27 PM	#45
BenBurch Gatekeeper of The Left Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one. Posts: 32,220	Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe ... Has it occurred to you that cause and effect might run the opposite way, and that the FBI is grooming fake terrorists because there is a total lack of real, major terrorist attackers left in the USA to justify their anti-terrorism budget? That is almost the dumbest thing I have seen posted here. There is NO dearth of real terrorists at all.
	__________________ Are you IN? Join the IN crowd now!

16th May 2012, 04:52 PM	#46
The Central Scrutinizer Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: The White Zone Posts: 42,278	Originally Posted by BenBurch That is almost the dumbest thing I have seen posted here. Agreed.
	__________________ If I see somebody with a gun on a plane? I'll kill him.

16th May 2012, 05:05 PM	#47
Kevin_Lowe Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Queensland Posts: 10,285	Originally Posted by BenBurch That is almost the dumbest thing I have seen posted here. There is NO dearth of real terrorists at all. No, seriously, it's safe to come out from under the blankets now. ... Oh, okay, stay under there as long as you like.
	__________________ Thinking is skilled work....People with untrained minds should no more expect to think clearly and logically than people who have never learned and never practiced can expect to find themselves good carpenters, golfers, bridge-players, or pianists. -- Alfred Mander

16th May 2012, 05:19 PM	#48
MG1962 Guest Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Kansas (Australia) Posts: 14,750	Originally Posted by Axiom_Blade So why isn't the FBI targeting them, like they are the left-wing groups? Depends where the groups are in their cycle - The right wing militants were under the gun - about 5 - 8 years ago. Now they are in a reorganizing phase, and probably wont radicalize till more charismatic leaders come through

16th May 2012, 05:31 PM	#49
BenBurch Gatekeeper of The Left Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one. Posts: 32,220	Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe No, seriously, it's safe to come out from under the blankets now. ... Oh, okay, stay under there as long as you like. OK, so those printer cartridges weren't bombs, and Dr. George Tiller is still alive, then?
	__________________ Are you IN? Join the IN crowd now!

16th May 2012, 06:09 PM	#50
The Central Scrutinizer Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: The White Zone Posts: 42,278	Originally Posted by BenBurch OK, so those printer cartridges weren't bombs, and Dr. George Tiller is still alive, then? How dare you cause such confusion by introducing facts!
	__________________ If I see somebody with a gun on a plane? I'll kill him.

16th May 2012, 06:37 PM	#51
Brainster Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 10,445	Originally Posted by RandFan That too. Nixon used whatever asset he felt would get the job done (though CIA was not a particularly good choice I concede but there is evidence that the CIA was involved with the Plumbers see below). But I would actually say that it was the Plumbers that did most of the dirty work and I don't think any of them were active FBI. At the time of their arrest. Liddy was ex FBI and Hunt was ex CIA. Nixon need not have been behind every FBI action to have used them to further his own asinine and paranoid schemes though. Do you have evidence that Obama is doing as Nixon did? Did you read the whole page on Paisley? There are, to say the least, some pretty big red flags that's a kook page. Wiki is not immune to those.
	__________________ My new blog: Recent Reads. 1960s Comic Book Nostalgia Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.

16th May 2012, 06:53 PM	#52
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,417	Originally Posted by Brainster Did you read the whole page on Paisley? There are, to say the least, some pretty big red flags that's a kook page. Wiki is not immune to those. I'm not seeing a whole lot of red flags. It hints at some conspiracy with the JFK assassination and cover up of documents and Paisley's continued work for the CIA, but I'm not pushing any grand CT. In fact, I'm not pushing anything but to say Paisley was CIA (as was Hunt) and there is some evidence that the connections might be incidental back scratching or nothing.
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith Last edited by RandFan; 16th May 2012 at 06:55 PM.

16th May 2012, 06:55 PM	#53
Juniversal CIA + FBI + NWO Employee Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Cincinnati, USA Posts: 1,845	Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe Has it occurred to you that cause and effect might run the opposite way, and that the FBI is grooming fake terrorists because there is a total lack of real, major terrorist attackers left in the USA to justify their anti-terrorism budget? The conspiracy section is THAT way...>
	__________________ "God is an ever receding pocket of scientific ignorance." - Neil deGrasse Tyson

16th May 2012, 07:15 PM	#54
crimresearch Alumbrado Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 10,618	Originally Posted by Juniversal The conspiracy section is THAT way...> Some posts bring the CT section to you... Whether you want it or not.
crimresearch Alumbrado Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 10,618

16th May 2012, 07:56 PM	#55
BStrong Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: California Posts: 3,829	Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe Do you think you could unpack your reasoning process there for us? Because it looks to me like you're arguing "real terrorists exist, therefore you can't prove that a fake terrorist wouldn't have turned into a real terrorist, therefore we should make fake terrorists and arrest them". I don't pretend to have a crystal ball, but I do have a magic rock that keeps tigers away. Have you just been lucky, or is my rock perhaps more effective at preventing tiger attacks than you would like to admit? Has it occurred to you that cause and effect might run the opposite way, and that the FBI is grooming fake terrorists because there is a total lack of real, major terrorist attackers left in the USA to justify their anti-terrorism budget? So, in your view, the FBI simply finds groups of harmless idiots, tempts them with gifts of bang and boom that they are powerless to resist, and then reaps the benefits of these poor harmless souls being arrested on terrorism charges? I don't know anything about the laws in your country, but here in the U.S., under federal law there are strict laws regulating participating CI (Confidential Informant) conduct during an investigation - they can not "make" the conspiracy or crime charged- the CI can not invent on their own an association of individuals engaged in a criminal act and then prosecute said individuals for their behavior. Simple example: an individual CI insinuates themselves into an existing motorcycle club and then is involved in a countinuing criminal enterprise involving those individuals. Solid investigation, possible convictions. CI forms motorcycle club, forments a continuing criminal enterprise, and supplies contrban to the members. No go. The F.B.I. in the instances detailed did not form these groups out of thin air, their guy fit into an existing environment where criminal activity was discussed and considered, and they then (to one extent or another)furthered the existing criminal conduct entered into by the other actors. It's really no different from many cases where individuals seek to hire an individual to carry out a murder - the CI plays the part of a contract killer, they document the process of the plan and arrest and charge the individual attempting to hire the killer for Conspiracy to Commit Murder - the fact that the individual didn't plan to commit the act themselves or have the ability to find an actual professional murderer doesn't mean that they haven't engaged in criminal conduct.

16th May 2012, 07:57 PM	#56
Kevin_Lowe Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Queensland Posts: 10,285	Originally Posted by BenBurch OK, so those printer cartridges weren't bombs, and Dr. George Tiller is still alive, then? Okay, look, stay under those covers. But while you are there let's pretend we're two rational skeptics, and play the Falsification Game. What would count to you as evidence that would falsify the theory that these Cinderella stings make you safer?
	__________________ Thinking is skilled work....People with untrained minds should no more expect to think clearly and logically than people who have never learned and never practiced can expect to find themselves good carpenters, golfers, bridge-players, or pianists. -- Alfred Mander Last edited by Kevin_Lowe; 16th May 2012 at 08:15 PM.

16th May 2012, 08:14 PM	#57
Kevin_Lowe Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Queensland Posts: 10,285	Originally Posted by BStrong So, in your view, the FBI simply finds groups of harmless idiots, tempts them with gifts of bang and boom that they are powerless to resist, and then reaps the benefits of these poor harmless souls being arrested on terrorism charges? I think that whenever a person feels the temptation to start a sentence with "so, in your view" or "it seems to me you are saying" and then follow it up with an idiotic straw man argument that they should walk away from the computer instead and come back after they've relaxed and smelled some flowers or something. Quote: I don't know anything about the laws in your country, but here in the U.S., under federal law there are strict laws regulating participating CI (Confidential Informant) conduct during an investigation - they can not "make" the conspiracy or crime charged- the CI can not invent on their own an association of individuals engaged in a criminal act and then prosecute said individuals for their behavior. Simple example: an individual CI insinuates themselves into an existing motorcycle club and then is involved in a countinuing criminal enterprise involving those individuals. Solid investigation, possible convictions. CI forms motorcycle club, forments a continuing criminal enterprise, and supplies contrban to the members. No go. The F.B.I. in the instances detailed did not form these groups out of thin air, their guy fit into an existing environment where criminal activity was discussed and considered, and they then (to one extent or another)furthered the existing criminal conduct entered into by the other actors. Indeed, they are carefully stepping around the laws enacted to stop law enforcement agents grooming criminals instead of catching them. However they've found a new grooming method to achieve exactly that goal which isn't currently illegal, and that loophole could do with closing. Quote: It's really no different from many cases where individuals seek to hire an individual to carry out a murder - the CI plays the part of a contract killer, they document the process of the plan and arrest and charge the individual attempting to hire the killer for Conspiracy to Commit Murder - the fact that the individual didn't plan to commit the act themselves or have the ability to find an actual professional murderer doesn't mean that they haven't engaged in criminal conduct. On the contrary, it's totally different. If Joe Idiot decided to blow up a bridge, and without any outside assistance obtained the materials and the detonators and was all ready to go, great, bust them. On the other hand if Joe Idiot fantasises about blowing up a bridge but is not going to actually do it, and has no prospects of successfully doing so without coming to the attention of the authorities, playing Fairy Godmother and magically providing them with prop C4, prop detonators and so on is creating a crime that would never have existed without the Fairy Godmother. They recruit relatively harmless idiots who are at worst on a path to get themselves busted for trying to illegally obtain something, and ratchet up the charges until they can bust them for trying to blow up Christmas. The net result is nobody is any safer, but idiots remain scared of the terrorists under the bed and the FBI keeps their budget. If that makes us safer, why stop there? Let's give someone a fake underwater base, a fake army of minions, a fake nuclear warhead and a fake piranha pool. Then when they launch the warhead we could all yell "surprise!" and charge them with trying to destroy the world. How safe would we be then?
	__________________ Thinking is skilled work....People with untrained minds should no more expect to think clearly and logically than people who have never learned and never practiced can expect to find themselves good carpenters, golfers, bridge-players, or pianists. -- Alfred Mander

16th May 2012, 09:07 PM	#58
The Central Scrutinizer Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: The White Zone Posts: 42,278	Originally Posted by Juniversal The conspiracy section is THAT way...> It's next to the "Bush stole the 2004 election" thread.
	__________________ If I see somebody with a gun on a plane? I'll kill him.

16th May 2012, 09:39 PM	#59
Virus Master Templar Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Australia Posts: 6,215	Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe I think that whenever a person feels the temptation to start a sentence with "so, in your view" or "it seems to me you are saying" and then follow it up with an idiotic straw man argument that they should walk away from the computer instead and come back after they've relaxed and smelled some flowers or something. That is what you're saying though. You just don't like it when it's put back to you bluntly.
	__________________ "The folks who proclaim their sensitivity, nuanced thinking, therapeutic concern for the tender sensibilities of others, and open-mindedness have always been the most vicious, bigoted, narrow-minded, crude, dogmatic, conformist people on the planet." - Victor Davis Hanson. Last edited by Virus; 16th May 2012 at 10:16 PM.

16th May 2012, 09:42 PM	#60
casebro Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 6,800	Originally Posted by BenBurch That is almost the dumbest thing I have seen posted here. There is NO dearth of real terrorists at all. We are talking DOMESTIC terrorism here. Which just has not actually happening. Terrorism is just soooo easy to commit that if some group wanted to, it would be happening. Daily. No FBI assistance needed. Hunting rifles at sporting events. Suicide truckers taking out bridge pilings. Gasoline bombs. It just isn't happening, ergo there are no terrorists. Oh, we have the occasional whacky individual that I'd call a mass murderer, not a terrorist. But not large groups with rockets and bombs. No successful 'cells'. Which leaves me two choices: Either there ain't none. Or the BIG CT: it happens all the time, but gets covered up. Only the busts hit the news, while secret Gulags are overflowing with radicals who have actually succeeded. All kept secret under the Patriot Act. And all done to foster public confidence. I just can't believe the FBI is totally, 100%, completely efficient at catching the bad guys. Much more believable that there are NO bad guys except the doofus ones the FBI entraps.
casebro Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 6,800	__________________ Please pardon me for having ideas, not facts. Some have called me cynical, but I don't believe them. It's not how many breaths you take. It's how many times you have been breathless that counts.

16th May 2012, 10:18 PM	#61
Virus Master Templar Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Australia Posts: 6,215	Originally Posted by BenBurch That is almost the dumbest thing I have seen posted here. There is NO dearth of real terrorists at all. Originally Posted by casebro We are talking DOMESTIC terrorism here. Which just has not actually happening. Terrorism is just soooo easy to commit that if some group wanted to, it would be happening. Daily. No FBI assistance needed. Hunting rifles at sporting events. Suicide truckers taking out bridge pilings. Gasoline bombs. It just isn't happening, ergo there are no terrorists. Oh, we have the occasional whacky individual that I'd call a mass murderer, not a terrorist. But not large groups with rockets and bombs. No successful 'cells'. Which leaves me two choices: Either there ain't none. Or the BIG CT: it happens all the time, but gets covered up. Only the busts hit the news, while secret Gulags are overflowing with radicals who have actually succeeded. All kept secret under the Patriot Act. And all done to foster public confidence. I just can't believe the FBI is totally, 100%, completely efficient at catching the bad guys. Much more believable that there are NO bad guys except the doofus ones the FBI entraps. Upping your ante of dumbest things ever posted.
	__________________ "The folks who proclaim their sensitivity, nuanced thinking, therapeutic concern for the tender sensibilities of others, and open-mindedness have always been the most vicious, bigoted, narrow-minded, crude, dogmatic, conformist people on the planet." - Victor Davis Hanson.

16th May 2012, 10:34 PM	#62
Mycroft High Priest of Ed Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 16,110	Originally Posted by casebro We are talking DOMESTIC terrorism here. Which just has not actually happening. Terrorism is just soooo easy to commit that if some group wanted to, it would be happening. Daily. No FBI assistance needed. Hunting rifles at sporting events. Suicide truckers taking out bridge pilings. Gasoline bombs. It just isn't happening, ergo there are no terrorists. Oh, we have the occasional whacky individual that I'd call a mass murderer, not a terrorist. But not large groups with rockets and bombs. No successful 'cells'. Which leaves me two choices: Either there ain't none. Or the BIG CT: it happens all the time, but gets covered up. Only the busts hit the news, while secret Gulags are overflowing with radicals who have actually succeeded. All kept secret under the Patriot Act. And all done to foster public confidence. I just can't believe the FBI is totally, 100%, completely efficient at catching the bad guys. Much more believable that there are NO bad guys except the doofus ones the FBI entraps. It's not much, agreed. Possibly due to the diligence of our law enforcement agencies, but it's not true that it's not happening either. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrori...d_States#2000s
	__________________ Surely Israel is the party to blame? -a_unique_person I do have Mycroft on ignore, he is pretty much the Matt Giwer of your side. -a_unique_person Palestinian Refugees

16th May 2012, 11:16 PM	#63
portlandatheist Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 2,111	This whole thread is ridiculous. The FBI's job is to find terrorists and protect the safety of the public. Does it make any difference if terrorists are motivated by right wing agendas, left wing agendas, or even if their objective is good such as to protect endangered species, stop AIDS, etc.? No, the objective and politics of the terrorists are totally and utterly irrelevant. The only thing that matters is the existential threat they pose to the public regardless of their motivation. This thread is flirting dangerously with the "one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter" mentality. When it comes to a terrorist like Mohamed Osman Mohamud, he was absolutely and completely dedicated to Jihad. Without the FBI's "help", he probably wouldn't have been able to acquire a large truck bomb able to kill more people than 9/11 which he aspired to do but there's no doubt he would have killed as many people as he possibly could given his means which, if we had been lucky and had not have had the FBI's help, would probably only be a few dozen people killed instead in the best case scenario. The sympathy for this piece of ** is totally misguided as is the criticism of the FBI. The FBI doesn't care what religion or politics this ***** has, but only the existential threat that he presents. The amount of human lives that have been saved by this sting alone we'll never know for sure but we can assume that many valuable human lives have been saved by their actions and for that we owe them our gratitude. I simply don't understand the desire to look at terrorists via the lens of their grievances. Consider the Norway attacks, you're an idiot if you think the root cause was "multiculturalism and liberalism" of which the perpetrator claims as his motivation. It's as stupid as saying domestic violence is caused by burnt pot roast or 9/11 was due to misguided US foreign policy or the Rajneeshee attacks were due to misguided zoning laws. Seriously, the FBI is simply doing its job here. Its not entrapment and it has nothing to do with left versus right politics.

17th May 2012, 04:31 AM	#64
000063 Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: Not America. Posts: 4,738	Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe I think that whenever a person feels the temptation to start a sentence with "so, in your view" or "it seems to me you are saying" and then follow it up with an idiotic straw man argument that they should walk away from the computer instead and come back after they've relaxed and smelled some flowers or something. ... You do not actually say that the BStrong's summary of your position is wrong, I note. In fact, you make no specific reference to that part of his post at all. You just make a generalized statement about "people" who post what you call straw men starting with "so, in your view" or "it seems to me you are saying". You're evading.
	__________________ No, I'd like you to answer the question in two, simple, coherent sentences. ... That's how you present credible arguments in written form. -ergo, on me giving him a 2 digit number I can think of two reasons why bedunkers are often so loathe to explain their theories using plain, concise language--words even. - ergo Last edited by 000063; 17th May 2012 at 04:36 AM.

17th May 2012, 04:40 AM	#65
000063 Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: Not America. Posts: 4,738	Originally Posted by portlandatheist ... It's as stupid as saying domestic violence is caused by burnt pot roast or 9/11 was due to misguided US foreign policy or the Rajneeshee attacks were due to misguided zoning laws. Seriously, the FBI is simply doing its job here. Its not entrapment and it has nothing to do with left versus right politics. I've seen on this very subforum people say exactly that. They also argued that the Taliban suicide bombing is America's fault because it is a reasonable consequence of the Afghan war. When I asked if Osama is responsible for the Afghan war because it was a reasonable consequence of 9/11, he ignored the question. When I ask him how far back these responsibility chains start, he doesn't answer.
	__________________ No, I'd like you to answer the question in two, simple, coherent sentences. ... That's how you present credible arguments in written form. -ergo, on me giving him a 2 digit number I can think of two reasons why bedunkers are often so loathe to explain their theories using plain, concise language--words even. - ergo

17th May 2012, 06:05 AM	#66
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Albany Park, Chicago Posts: 49,134	Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe Okay, look, stay under those covers. But while you are there let's pretend we're two rational skeptics, and play the Falsification Game. What would count to you as evidence that would falsify the theory that these Cinderella stings make you safer? I'm so sorry your heros got caught trying to blow up a bridge. Sucks to be them!

17th May 2012, 06:27 AM	#67
BStrong Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: California Posts: 3,829	A anecdote from my past. In the 1980's, I was a principal of a company that was a licensed SOT - Special Occupational Taxpayer - we were licensed by the Feds. & St. to manufacture and sell National Firearms Act weapons and devices - MG's and sound suppressors. I was contacted by an individual who by way of introducing themselves referenced a friend in common. This individual claimed to have like experience and interests. This individual then went on to explain to me that he was part of a group that was tasked (covertly) with investigating the possible presence of American M.I.A.'s in Laos. He wanted me to provide him and his group with weapons and devices - off the books - that he and said group would then use in their mission. A violation of both Fed and St. law. I thanked him for his interest, and then threw his ass right the **** out of my office. I then contacted my attorney, discussed the incident on the record, and wrote up a memo to file detailing everything about the conversation. My attorney then contacted the F.B.I., and arranged an interview for me to discuss the incident. That is what one does when they are operating legally and above board. Hearing a "fantasy" about criminal activity involving violence or the destruction of property and not reporting it puts one into the possible position of being charged with being an accessory to the crime being discussed.

17th May 2012, 11:35 AM	#68
Mycroft High Priest of Ed Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 16,110	Originally Posted by BStrong Hearing a "fantasy" about criminal activity involving violence or the destruction of property and not reporting it puts one into the possible position of being charged with being an accessory to the crime being discussed. Playing devil's advocate for a moment, how many people know that? You work(ed) in a position where you have certain legal responsibilities, but what's the responsibility of someone standing in a crowd of people protesting something listening to other talk crap?
	__________________ Surely Israel is the party to blame? -a_unique_person I do have Mycroft on ignore, he is pretty much the Matt Giwer of your side. -a_unique_person Palestinian Refugees

17th May 2012, 02:40 PM	#69
casebro Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 6,800	Originally Posted by Mycroft It's not much, agreed. Possibly due to the diligence of our law enforcement agencies, but it's not true that it's not happening either. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrori...d_States#2000s I scanned those items. Many were done by individuals, many were done by foreign assassins with one other foreigner as the target. The definition of terrorism is an act meant to intimidate the general population. Unabomer was only after hi-techers, and only killed three. McVeigh only pulled off one act. 911, yes. A whacko committing suicide at the Statue of Liberty, is a lone whacko, not a Terrorist. Even if he does take others with him. I think that list proves my point, that it is easy to commit acts of mass murder without FBI assistance. It also proves that it is very rare. All proof of my concept. Mass murders are getting more rare, even among whackos. PS, I looked a little closer. Since 2000, the only group that blew anybody up was the 911 airplane attack. All the rest were done by individuals or property damage only. NOT ONE SINGLE CELL has done any terrorism. Hey, has the FBI stung any wannabe pilots? "Pssst, wanna buy a hot 747?" Matter of fact, one could interpret this all as "Since Iraq II as our response to 911, there have been NO acts of foreign terrorism on U.S. soil."
casebro Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 6,800	__________________ Please pardon me for having ideas, not facts. Some have called me cynical, but I don't believe them. It's not how many breaths you take. It's how many times you have been breathless that counts.

17th May 2012, 10:45 PM	#70
crimresearch Alumbrado Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 10,618	Quote: The definition of terrorism is an act meant to intimidate the general population That is a definition... and not a particularly useful one.
crimresearch Alumbrado Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 10,618