Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Kilkrazy wrote:I would prefer to hear about arrests of genuine jihadist plotters rather than dimwit little mugs who have been entrapped.

+1. There are more than enough real bad guys to go after without wasting even more of our tax $$ on entrapment stings against a guy that rambled a bit but didn't build anything himself. Plenty of folks would drive a bomb up to a building if you just handed it to them....THAT is the really scary part.

agroszkiewicz wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:I would prefer to hear about arrests of genuine jihadist plotters rather than dimwit little mugs who have been entrapped.

+1. There are more than enough real bad guys to go after without wasting even more of our tax $$ on entrapment stings against a guy that rambled a bit but didn't build anything himself. Plenty of folks would drive a bomb up to a building if you just handed it to them....THAT is the really scary part.

Those people should be arrested, actually.

Even if this guy was dead set on killing everyone, this is the equivalent of arresting a street level drug dealer. It makes no difference in the war on terror, just like putting every dealer in jail made no difference in the war on drugs.

They should be looking for high level people, I hear some of them are eating dinner at the Pentagon...

http://www.prisonplanet.com/al-qaeda-mastermind-invited-to-pentagon-after-911.html

rdlb wrote:Even if this guy was dead set on killing everyone, this is the equivalent of arresting a street level drug dealer. It makes no difference in the war on terror, just like putting every dealer in jail made no difference in the war on drugs.

They should be looking for high level people, I hear some of them are eating dinner at the Pentagon...

http://www.prisonplanet.com/al-qaeda-mastermind-invited-to-pentagon-after-911.html

Monster Rain wrote:If they go this far:

OP's News Story wrote:The FBI monitored Mohamud's e-mail and found he was in contact with people overseas, asking how he could travel to Pakistan and join the fight for jihad, according to an FBI affidavit.

Then I think that they are a perfectly valid target for a sting.

Fair enough. I'd be more interested in the people overseas that he's contacting, personally.

But hey, I'm not in the FBI, their knowledge base might argue that getting kids at this level is a much more effective approach than targeting the higher ups. I'm also wondering if nabbing this kid so publically might make other kids very suspicious of making similar contacts, and if that in itself might be very beneficial.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:Woops looks like he actually was in contact with Al Qaeda. Can we safely say the FBI used its resources wisely now?

Not when the conversation has concerned whether this lead could be used to capture far more threatening targets. In that context, contact with AQ furthers the argument that it was a wasted opportunity.

Monster Rain wrote:

agroszkiewicz wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:I would prefer to hear about arrests of genuine jihadist plotters rather than dimwit little mugs who have been entrapped.

+1. There are more than enough real bad guys to go after without wasting even more of our tax $$ on entrapment stings against a guy that rambled a bit but didn't build anything himself. Plenty of folks would drive a bomb up to a building if you just handed it to them....THAT is the really scary part.

Those people should be arrested, actually.

For what? Having the potential to commit an act of violence if the circumstances align in a specific way? I'm lost here....

agroszkiewicz wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

agroszkiewicz wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:I would prefer to hear about arrests of genuine jihadist plotters rather than dimwit little mugs who have been entrapped.

+1. There are more than enough real bad guys to go after without wasting even more of our tax $$ on entrapment stings against a guy that rambled a bit but didn't build anything himself. Plenty of folks would drive a bomb up to a building if you just handed it to them....THAT is the really scary part.

Those people should be arrested, actually.

For what? Having the potential to commit an act of violence if the circumstances align in a specific way? I'm lost here....

Someone who's on the internet doing the type of things that I've posted twice already that follows through with a conspiracy to kill large numbers of civilians should be taken off the street.

Criticizing the FBI for "entrapping" an animal like this is, to me, ridiculous.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sebster wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:If they go this far:

OP's News Story wrote:The FBI monitored Mohamud's e-mail and found he was in contact with people overseas, asking how he could travel to Pakistan and join the fight for jihad, according to an FBI affidavit.

Then I think that they are a perfectly valid target for a sting.

Fair enough. I'd be more interested in the people overseas that he's contacting, personally.

But hey, I'm not in the FBI, their knowledge base might argue that getting kids at this level is a much more effective approach than targeting the higher ups. I'm also wondering if nabbing this kid so publically might make other kids very suspicious of making similar contacts, and if that in itself might be very beneficial.

Again, I'm sure they're working on both things.

As to the part I emphasized, I'd be surprised if that wasn't part of their plan.

Someone who's on the internet doing the type of things that I've posted twice already that follows through with a conspiracy to kill large numbers of civilians should be taken off the street.

Criticizing the FBI for "entrapping" an animal like this is, to me, ridiculous.

Even when they have essentially no limit to the number of people like this they can find and "entrap" while determined, skilled, and connected terrorists walk around free?

They don't have unlimited funds and time y'know!

ShumaGorath wrote:

Someone who's on the internet doing the type of things that I've posted twice already that follows through with a conspiracy to kill large numbers of civilians should be taken off the street.

Criticizing the FBI for "entrapping" an animal like this is, to me, ridiculous.

Even when they have essentially no limit to the number of people like this they can find and "entrap" while determined, skilled, and connected terrorists walk around free?

They don't have unlimited funds and time y'know!

You seem to be trying really hard to prop up this notion that nabbing this guy took attention off of someone else.

I don't see why that has to be the case. I'm also curious as to where you get the idea that there's essentially no limit to the number of people in the US willing to carry out this kind of act.

You seem to be trying really hard to prop up this notion that nabbing this guy took attention off of someone else.

Not really. I don't even care. You're confusing me for everyone else you're arguing with, you just advocated catching every single disturbed individual in america. I just don't think the FBI has time to set up long winded setups and stings for tens of thousands. Thats all.

I don't see why that has to be the case. I'm also curious as to where you get the idea that there's essentially no limit to the number of people in the US willing to carry out this kind of act.

Because theres a large enough number that it might as well be. These people are harmless enough without being given chance after chance after chance to enact their fantasies, but thats exactly what these kinds of sets ups do. I mean, after a short time you're going to go from islamic extremists to anti government nutcases and wacky racists, and rebels, but hey. Those people still exist.

The FBI's juridiction is the Border of the US. They can't legally nab someone overseas. That's the CIA's job.

ShumaGorath wrote:

You seem to be trying really hard to prop up this notion that nabbing this guy took attention off of someone else.

Not really. I don't even care. You're confusing me for everyone else you're arguing with, you just advocated catching every single disturbed individual in america. I just don't think the FBI has time to set up long winded setups and stings for tens of thousands. Thats all.

I see what you're saying. I didn't advocate catching all of them, just the ones that actively attempt to contact terrorist organizations so that they can wage jihad. You did read the story, yeah?

ShumaGorath wrote:

I don't see why that has to be the case. I'm also curious as to where you get the idea that there's essentially no limit to the number of people in the US willing to carry out this kind of act.

Because theres a large enough number that it might as well be. These people are harmless enough without being given chance after chance after chance to enact their fantasies, but thats exactly what these kinds of sets ups do. I mean, after a short time you're going to go from islamic extremists to anti government nutcases and wacky racists, and rebels, but hey. Those people still exist.

Well, I'll admit that I'm not basing this on hard data or anything (but when does that stop someone from saying something on an OT thread?) but I'd really like to think that more people wouldn't blow up a Christmas tree lighting than would.

I guess I'm an optimist to a fault.

Stormrider wrote:The FBI's juridiction is the Border of the US. They can't legally nab someone overseas. That's the CIA's job.

The CIA can't actually nab people overseas, either, because they're an intelligence service, not policemen. To the extent that you want to capture people legally, you need to engage Interpol or directly use the overseas police forces.

Well, I'll admit that I'm not basing this on hard data or anything (but when does that stop someone from saying something on an OT thread?) but I'd really like to think that more people wouldn't blow up a Christmas tree lighting than would.

Thats why I said tens of thousands, not one hundred and sixty million people.

I guess I'm an optimist to a fault.

Ayuh.

Monster Rain wrote:So you aren't actually saying anything. That's what I thought.

Le Sigh.

No, again, I am saying that every case is different but given the information we had re this individual, it seems as though it may have made more sense to develop the case in a different way.

We can safely assume that the FBI is investigating terrorism at more than the foolish internet ballbag level that this story happens to discuss. To claim otherwise is, if you'll forgive me for saying so, blithering idiocy.

Then I am supremely glad that I have maintained throughout that I have not assumed that the FBI goes round entrapping nobody tools who are not a danger to anyone and/or has no connection to terrorist organisations. I would hate to be considered a blithering idiot.

rdlb wrote:Even if this guy was dead set on killing everyone, this is the equivalent of arresting a street level drug dealer. It makes no difference in the war on terror, just like putting every dealer in jail made no difference in the war on drugs.

They should be looking for high level people, I hear some of them are eating dinner at the Pentagon...

http://www.prisonplanet.com/al-qaeda-mastermind-invited-to-pentagon-after-911.html

You have to do both.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Monster Rain wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Someone who's on the internet doing the type of things that I've posted twice already that follows through with a conspiracy to kill large numbers of civilians should be taken off the street.

Criticizing the FBI for "entrapping" an animal like this is, to me, ridiculous.

Even when they have essentially no limit to the number of people like this they can find and "entrap" while determined, skilled, and connected terrorists walk around free?

They don't have unlimited funds and time y'know!

You seem to be trying really hard to prop up this notion that nabbing this guy took attention off of someone else.

I don't see why that has to be the case. I'm also curious as to where you get the idea that there's essentially no limit to the number of people in the US willing to carry out this kind of act.

Note the FBI and local agencies routinely goes after similar "stings" when it gets wind of spouses looking to hire hire others to take out their spouse and that sort of thing. Its part of what they do to keep these sort of things from actually being carried through.

SilverMK2 wrote:No, again, I am saying that every case is different but given the information we had re this individual, it seems as though it may have made more sense to develop the case in a different way.

Based on what, exactly?

Frazzled wrote:
You have to do both.

Well, you don't have to do anything.

The FBI could absolutely let low level terrorists do their thing in order to get the high level ones. I mean, that's pretty much how anti-drug operations go.

After all, we're not in danger of running out of people.

If we were, you'd think all those crusades against food that leads to hear disease would have more traction.

Monster Rain wrote:
I'm also curious as to where you get the idea that there's essentially no limit to the number of people in the US willing to carry out this kind of act.

Well, there's no limit because simply chasing down angry people that want to kill lots of other people isn't exactly going to put an end to people being angry and wanting to kill other people.

People get angry, and want to kill other people as a result. That's just humanity.

The rate at which that happens might be limited, but that's a different issue.

The more important thing is that almost everyone, especially when young, had probably had times in which, if presented the opportunity, would have done something really violent and stupid.

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
You have to do both.

Well, you don't have to do anything.

The FBI could absolutely let low level terrorists do their thing in order to get the high level ones. I mean, that's pretty much how anti-drug operations go.

After all, we're not in danger of running out of people.

Thats not right in the head, are you on drugs or just a replicant? Quick someone get a blade runner!

Monster Rain wrote:Based on what, exactly?

... Well, on what has been posted and linked to from this thread.

Yes you do have to do both. But in the war on drugs and the war on terror they do not do both.

In addition, there is something called the balloon effect. Here's a short example.
http://www.janes.com/articles/Janes-Terrorism-And-Security-Monitor-2001/Ecuador-experiences-balloon-effect-of-Colombia-s-drugs.html
This is completely ignored in anti-terrorism and anti-drug efforts and its one reason militant groups are popping up everywhere from Indonesia to Eastern Africa.

dogma wrote:

Monster Rain wrote: I'm also curious as to where you get the idea that there's essentially no limit to the number of people in the US willing to carry out this kind of act.

Well, there's no limit because simply chasing down angry people that want to kill lots of other people isn't exactly going to put an end to people being angry and wanting to kill other people.

Again, how about we set them up for a sting if they go this far:

OP's News Story wrote:The FBI monitored Mohamud's e-mail and found he was in contact with people overseas, asking how he could travel to Pakistan and join the fight for jihad, according to an FBI affidavit.

Frazzled wrote:

Thats not right in the head, are you on drugs or just a replicant? Quick someone get a blade runner!

Did I say anything about what the FBI should do?

Unless "could" and "should" now mean the same thing you really need to start reading what people post.

Again, no one has to do anything, not even if we're talking about a relatively limited conditional like "deter terrorism".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Monster Rain wrote:
Again, how about we set them up for a sting if they go this far:

OP's News Story wrote:The FBI monitored Mohamud's e-mail and found he was in contact with people overseas, asking how he could travel to Pakistan and join the fight for jihad, according to an FBI affidavit.

That's still not a limited set of people, as you're never going to actually stop all people from doing that.

I guess its a limited set at any given time, but that's not what I was commenting on.

I'll restate: Dogma typed:

Well, you don't have to do anything.

The FBI could absolutely let low level terrorists do their thing in order to get the high level ones. I mean, that's pretty much how anti-drug operations go.

After all, we're not in danger of running out of people.

I think the only thing we can do now is reaffirm the greater greatness of weiner dog legions:

Frazzled wrote:

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
You have to do both.

Well, you don't have to do anything.

The FBI could absolutely let low level terrorists do their thing in order to get the high level ones. I mean, that's pretty much how anti-drug operations go.

After all, we're not in danger of running out of people.

Thats not right in the head, are you on drugs or just a replicant? Quick someone get a blade runner!

Says the man on record as advocating mass murder in other countries to prevent terrorism here.

Again, how about we set them up for a sting if they go this far:

As opposed to stringing him along and attempting to catch those people?

Frazzled wrote:I'll restate: Dogma typed:

Well, you don't have to do anything.

The FBI could absolutely let low level terrorists do their thing in order to get the high level ones. I mean, that's pretty much how anti-drug operations go.

After all, we're not in danger of running out of people.

Having to do something is not the same thing as being able to do something, or being asked to do something because someone else believes that it should be done.

For a lawyer, your grasp of the English language isn't particularly impressive.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
You have to do both.

Well, you don't have to do anything.

The FBI could absolutely let low level terrorists do their thing in order to get the high level ones. I mean, that's pretty much how anti-drug operations go.

After all, we're not in danger of running out of people.

Thats not right in the head, are you on drugs or just a replicant? Quick someone get a blade runner!

Says the man on record as advocating mass murder in other countries to prevent terrorism here.

Again, how about we set them up for a sting if they go this far:

As opposed to stringing him along and attempting to catch those people?

Wait, there is something wrong with killing millions of people to save the life of one American?

Oh, that's right. Terrorists in other countries should die if it means saving the life of one American.

President Bartlet: Why is an American life worth more to me than another life?

Will Bailey: I don’t know Sir, but it is

Fateweaver wrote:
Wait, there is something wrong with killing millions of people to save the life of one American?

Oh, that's right. Terrorists in other countries should die if it means saving the life of one American.

Those are statements based on different premises, unless you're insinuating that there exist countries in which all people are bent on killing Americans.

In any case, that whole genocide thing tends to be frowned upon regardless of motivation. And the desire to save one life isn't even a particularly strong motivation.

There's a difference between merely acknowledging that the lives of people in one group are more important to you than the lives of people in another group (for example, I care about my friends, but not people that aren't my friends), and stating that a million people in one group are less important that 1 person in another.

To put it in perspective, Fate, you're basically arguing that we should be willing to kill a few million people in order to save Nancy Pelosi.

ShumaGorath wrote:As opposed to stringing him along and attempting to catch those people?

And you know that they aren't trying to catch those people how?