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.

This is like the guy in Florida who "hired" FBI agents to kill his lovers husband. he hired undercover agents and was arrested when he gave them the money.

Same basic principle, the guy wanted to kill someone...so what if he happened to screw it up and hire FBI agents. Thank goodness he didn't get the real deal.
GG

eg0u80bf wrote:

reds8n wrote:
If they just give him the bomb then it is/could well be entrapment. If he then goes off to do X/Y/Z then that action is not entrapment and therefore etc etc etc

right gotcha i think, but don't you need a special licence to buy, sell and own explosives or is that different to the uk? since then it wouldn't be entrapment

You indeed need a special permit-generally tied to the construction trade (and the IRS )

right gotcha i think, but don't you need a special licence to buy, sell and own explosives or is that different to the uk? since then it wouldn't be entrapment

It depends. Some things are restricted but it's been common knowledge since the 50's that you can make a bomb with the stuff in your kitchen.

Mr Mystery wrote:Take the 7th of July Bombings in London. Considering one went off in the Underground, casualties were very, very light, again highlighting the general incomptence of the Bombers. Of course it's an absolute tragedy they weren't stopped, but London being London, all was pretty much back to normal the day after, making a mockery of the supposed 'Terror' attack, mainly because few were terrorised by it.

Stiff upper lip and all that. To be fair you don't hear as much about 7/7 as 9/11 and I think its why 7/7 was less successful. The brits just got on with it.

Phototoxin wrote:

Mr Mystery wrote:Take the 7th of July Bombings in London. Considering one went off in the Underground, casualties were very, very light, again highlighting the general incomptence of the Bombers. Of course it's an absolute tragedy they weren't stopped, but London being London, all was pretty much back to normal the day after, making a mockery of the supposed 'Terror' attack, mainly because few were terrorised by it.

Stiff upper lip and all that. To be fair you don't hear as much about 7/7 as 9/11 and I think its why 7/7 was less successful. The brits just got on with it.

Frazzled wrote:

yep really, really, now for something slightly insensitive, by not just getting on with it after 9/11 americans have shown that attacks like it scare the people and so terrorism works, unlike with the july bombings were the next day it was back to work which gives the message of screw you, you can't scare us

or maybe it's cause the uk had the ira for 50 years we know how to act to terrorist attacks, don't give them the satisfaction

Though also keep this in perspective.

Not only was it Americas first major external Terror attack, but also a truly horrific one in terms of scale. Planes have been hijacked before, and always for a ransom. This was new. This was out of leftfield. It showed a level of organisation previously unseen in Terrorism.

Now true, I sometimes get the feeling that Americans don't really appreciate that many countries lived with Terror attacks decades before 9/11, but that does not detract from the horror nor the audacity of the attack. In a probably-more-demeaning-than-I-intend-but-I-can't-think-of-a-better-analogy-right-now, it's like calling a Baby a wuss for crying when it gets it's jabs, because a grown man has had several jabs over his lifetime. They received one hell of an eye opener.

Frazzled wrote:Wait you're from Britain right? Do you even have habeas corpus laws there?

Sbuh? Aren't you like a lawyer or something?

Habeas corpus is English in origin. You must know that.


In other news, I think you're right, the case for entrapment sounds incredibly weak. He'd have to establish that he was pressured or encouraged by government officials to commit the crime and I just don't see that at all.

Although I'm a little puzzled as to why you've then gone on to make the case that the only thing that matters is his intent at the moment of action. That's obviously not true, or else the concept of entrapment wouldn't exist at all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

generalgrog wrote:This is like the guy in Florida who "hired" FBI agents to kill his lovers husband. he hired undercover agents and was arrested when he gave them the money.

Same basic principle, the guy wanted to kill someone...so what if he happened to screw it up and hire FBI agents. Thank goodness he didn't get the real deal.
GG

The key point of difference, that might make an operation entrapment, is if the person was encouraged to commit the crime by government agents. So if a person merely expressed frustration with his wife, and was approached by an FBI agent who raised the topic of murder, told him he could do it and then planned every for the guy then there'd be a case of entrapment.

Phototoxin wrote:
Stiff upper lip and all that. To be fair you don't hear as much about 7/7 as 9/11 and I think its why 7/7 was less successful. The brits just got on with it.

..well..err..maybe. I think perhaps you are, severely, underplaying the difference in scale, deaths, and overall property destruction between the two events which I would suggest was a bigger factor in the response. We've had accidents that have caused more carnage than the 7/7 events. And whilst the London Underground users did display there usual fortitude and "don't give a feth" attitude required to use the system i think their response might have been a bit different if the attack hadn't been quite so ineffective.

reds8n wrote:

Phototoxin wrote:
Stiff upper lip and all that. To be fair you don't hear as much about 7/7 as 9/11 and I think its why 7/7 was less successful. The brits just got on with it.

..well..err..maybe. I think perhaps you are, severely, underplaying the difference in scale, deaths, and overall property destruction between the two events which I would suggest was a bigger factor in the response. We've had accidents that have caused more carnage than the 7/7 events. And whilst the London Underground users did display there usual fortitude and "don't give a feth" attitude required to use the system i think their response might have been a bit different if the attack hadn't been quite so ineffective.

but with terrorism it isn't about the kill count it's about how much fear is caused, the majority of london use the tube and busses, where were the bombs? tubes and busses, public transport is bigger in the uk than in usa

it was ineffective because the people didn't repond to it, not people didn't respond because it was ineffective, imagine if you rellied on a bus or train to go about your daily life.

the two events are about equal in fear ratings, "we can get you while going about your daily life"

reds8n wrote:

Phototoxin wrote:
Stiff upper lip and all that. To be fair you don't hear as much about 7/7 as 9/11 and I think its why 7/7 was less successful. The brits just got on with it.

..well..err..maybe. I think perhaps you are, severely, underplaying the difference in scale, deaths, and overall property destruction between the two events which I would suggest was a bigger factor in the response. We've had accidents that have caused more carnage than the 7/7 events. And whilst the London Underground users did display there usual fortitude and "don't give a feth" attitude required to use the system i think their response might have been a bit different if the attack hadn't been quite so ineffective.

hang on, i've got a Military history degree under my belt, let me add a little to this conversation

the main goal of terrorism is to cause random killings and inspire a "it could be me next time" mentality within the target population, and force them to obey the terrorist's will. Although i agree that, yes 9/11 and 7/7 were vastly different in terms of scale, America was then suddenly terrified of follow up attacks, Terrorist Objective achieved.

But after the attacks in england we brits simply recovered from the shock faster and resumed our daily lives, albeit with more caution than before. Terrorist Objective failed.

And a side note, hiring someone to kill "Assassination" even if the targets are many people, Terrorism is when their is no specified target.

So you're comparing an act of terrorism that claimed 53 lives to an act that claimed almost 3,000 lives and somehow claiming to be better able to handle attacks? Classy!

"Right, look here I have a hangnail, oh Bugger that stings! C'mon mate, just stuff those intestines back in the wound there and let's press on, you poncy Yank!"

SlaveToDorkness wrote:So you're comparing an act of terrorism that claimed 53 lives to an act that claimed almost 3,000 lives and somehow claiming to be better able to handle attacks? Classy!

"Right, look here I have a hangnail, oh Bugger that stings! C'mon mate, just stuff those intestines back in the wound there and let's press on, you poncy Yank!"

No i was saying that both attacks, regardless of scale, were designed to attempt to bend both countries' way of thinking to that of the terrorists. Indiscriminate killings are designed to inspire fear wether ten people are killed or ten thousand, the fact that public transport was attacked both times just reinforces the "It could be me next if we don't submit." mindset.

eg0u80bf wrote:

but with terrorism it isn't about the kill count it's about how much fear is caused,

err..no. The fear is caused by the demonstration of how many they are capable of killing. If the 9/11 attacks had been totally ineffective, resulting only in the deaths of a few delusional religious fanatics then, aside from the world being both a much better place and the planetary IQ jumping a good few points -- the responses from the American people -- and I'm not entirely convinced there was or could be a single response that one could generalise over -- would be different as well.

the majority of london use the tube and busses,

Hmm.. you sure.... A sizable % but not the majority AFAIK..but anyway..... And a lot less than the number of people who were in, for example New York, Washington and the other threatened places.

where were the bombs? tubes and busses,

In rucksacks.

public transport is bigger in the uk than in usa

Debatable, and largely irrelevant.

it was ineffective because the people didn't respond to it, not people didn't respond because it was ineffective, imagine if you rellied on a bus or train to go about your daily life.

People didn't respond precisely because it was ineffective, not due to some vague notion of national character which appears to be what you're saying.

I don't drive, I either walk or use Public transport, and only use that to get and travel around in London.

the two events are about equal in fear ratings, "we can get you while going about your daily life"

Not at all.

The 9/11 attacks were more destructive and they also bypassed security systems already in place that were far more elaborate than anything relating to Public transport and day to day life in London.

There appears to be some school of thought here that after 9/11 every American is or was suddenly cowering in hiding, terrified to go outside. Which..well.... really ? Did you not see the news, with all the lines of people helping or giving blood, or coming into work despite it not being their shift/day on or etc etc etc

America was then suddenly terrified of follow up attacks, Terrorist Objective achieved.

But after the attacks in england we brits simply recovered from the shock faster and resumed our daily lives, albeit with more caution than before. Terrorist Objective failed.

What ? You're contradicting yourself now. In what way was America more terrified than the UK ? How ? Most Americans resumed their daily lives afterwards as well.

And if the Uk is suddenly acting with "more caution" than before how is that any different than what America did.

Hmm, fair points.

It's possible i may be mis-remembering the after effects of both attacks, so i'll back out of this one until I can get my facts straight.

EDIT: fixed my spelling.

Mr Mystery wrote:Though also keep this in perspective.

Not only was it Americas first major external Terror attack, but also a truly horrific one in terms of scale. Planes have been hijacked before, and always for a ransom. This was new. This was out of leftfield. It showed a level of organisation previously unseen in Terrorism.

Now true, I sometimes get the feeling that Americans don't really appreciate that many countries lived with Terror attacks decades before 9/11, but that does not detract from the horror nor the audacity of the attack. In a probably-more-demeaning-than-I-intend-but-I-can't-think-of-a-better-analogy-right-now, it's like calling a Baby a wuss for crying when it gets it's jabs, because a grown man has had several jabs over his lifetime. They received one hell of an eye opener.

Something on the order of 800 Brits were also killed. How many died on 7/7? It also caused several $B in damage.

Thats commensurate with the first World Trade Center Attack (remember that?) which America shrugged off with a fogetaboutit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SlaveToDorkness wrote:So you're comparing an act of terrorism that claimed 53 lives to an act that claimed almost 3,000 lives and somehow claiming to be better able to handle attacks? Classy!

"Right, look here I have a hangnail, oh Bugger that stings! C'mon mate, just stuff those intestines back in the wound there and let's press on, you poncy Yank!"

Exactly. PLus the Pentagon attack and the attempted one that was headed towards Washington.

Frazzled wrote:

Mr Mystery wrote:Though also keep this in perspective.

Not only was it Americas first major external Terror attack, but also a truly horrific one in terms of scale. Planes have been hijacked before, and always for a ransom. This was new. This was out of leftfield. It showed a level of organisation previously unseen in Terrorism.

Now true, I sometimes get the feeling that Americans don't really appreciate that many countries lived with Terror attacks decades before 9/11, but that does not detract from the horror nor the audacity of the attack. In a probably-more-demeaning-than-I-intend-but-I-can't-think-of-a-better-analogy-right-now, it's like calling a Baby a wuss for crying when it gets it's jabs, because a grown man has had several jabs over his lifetime. They received one hell of an eye opener.

Something on the order of 800 Brits were also killed. How many died on 7/7? It also caused several $B in damage.

Thats commensurate with the first World Trade Center Attack (remember that?) which America shrugged off with a fogetaboutit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SlaveToDorkness wrote:So you're comparing an act of terrorism that claimed 53 lives to an act that claimed almost 3,000 lives and somehow claiming to be better able to handle attacks? Classy!

"Right, look here I have a hangnail, oh Bugger that stings! C'mon mate, just stuff those intestines back in the wound there and let's press on, you poncy Yank!"

Exactly. PLus the Pentagon attack and the attempted one that was headed towards Washington.

If I remember correctly, someone tried to take out the Foundations with a Car Bomb yes? And I have a sneaking suspicion it was somehow linked (correctly or incorrectly) to Timothy McVey as well? Bit hazy there.

Mr Mystery wrote:
If I remember correctly, someone tried to take out the Foundations with a Car Bomb yes? And I have a sneaking suspicion it was somehow linked (correctly or incorrectly) to Timothy McVey as well? Bit hazy there.

No. That was also islamic terrorists. summary here McVey was the Oklahoma City bombing.

Van Bomb. It was an Islamic attack
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_World_Trade_Center_bombing

Ha! Beat ya to it.

I still have a sneaking suspicion that someone tried to like Oklahoma to this one. Perhaps it was just media waffle.

Well, I certainly don't trust Sooners, so I wouldn't put it past them...

reds8n wrote:

eg0u80bf wrote:

but with terrorism it isn't about the kill count it's about how much fear is caused,

err..no. The fear is caused by the demonstration of how many they are capable of killing. If the 9/11 attacks had been totally ineffective, resulting only in the deaths of a few delusional religious fanatics then, aside from the world being both a much better place and the planetary IQ jumping a good few points -- the responses from the American people -- and I'm not entirely convinced there was or could be a single response that one could generalise over -- would be different as well.

no it's not just about a kill count, it's about how easy it is, how many and how much it'll look absolutly normal 5 seconds before, otherwise the anthrax letters and dirty bombs aren't that scary.

quick hypothetical question, if only 53 people died in 9/11 it would be ineffective like you say the july bombings are right? unless kill count isn't the be all and end all of terrorism right?

the majority of london use the tube and busses,

Hmm.. you sure.... A sizable % but not the majority AFAIK..but anyway..... And a lot less than the number of people who were in, for example New York, Washington and the other threatened places.

well 3 million use the underground each day http://www.directrail.com/london_underground.html and there are 7.9 million living in london unfortunatly i cant find info for busses, but one mill would make it the majority

where were the bombs? tubes and busses,

In rucksacks.

damn pedant, so where were the rucksacs? on people, where were the people? some in busses some in trains.

public transport is bigger in the uk than in usa

Debatable, and largely irrelevant.

not sure really (to many figures to find) but lets assume it is so i can make a point about irelivence, would a bomb going off in a bus be more terrifying to the general people if they use more public transport? right?

it was ineffective because the people didn't respond to it, not people didn't respond because it was ineffective, imagine if you rellied on a bus or train to go about your daily life.

People didn't respond precisely because it was ineffective, not due to some vague notion of national character which appears to be what you're saying.

I don't drive, I either walk or use Public transport, and only use that to get and travel around in London.

did i even hint at some kind of national character? nope aslo dirty bombs get hardly any kills yet still scare people, by your arguement they are ineffective, which is true if it was a war zone, but terrorism relies on striking fear.

the two events are about equal in fear ratings, "we can get you while going about your daily life"

Not at all.

The 9/11 attacks were more destructive and they also bypassed security systems already in place that were far more elaborate than anything relating to Public transport and day to day life in London.

There appears to be some school of thought here that after 9/11 every American is or was suddenly cowering in hiding, terrified to go outside. Which..well.... really ? Did you not see the news, with all the lines of people helping or giving blood, or coming into work despite it not being their shift/day on or etc etc etc

yeah have to give this to you, but again destruction isn't the be all and end all or dirty bombs aren't scary and i'm not part of "some school of thought here that after 9/11 every American is or was suddenly cowering in hiding, terrified to go outside".

some of the scars left from 9/11 are still there, which is the point i'm making

America was then suddenly terrified of follow up attacks, Terrorist Objective achieved.

But after the attacks in england we brits simply recovered from the shock faster and resumed our daily lives, albeit with more caution than before. Terrorist Objective failed.

What ? You're contradicting yourself now. In what way was America more terrified than the UK ? How ? Most Americans resumed their daily lives afterwards as well.

And if the Uk is suddenly acting with "more caution" than before how is that any different than what America did.

erm i didn't say this, can you change it so that it has lord harrab as the one saying it, note i don't use capitals unless i copy the capitals or abriviations

eg0u80bf wrote:

no it's not just about a kill count, it's about how easy it is, how many and how much it'll look absolutly normal 5 seconds before, otherwise the anthrax letters and dirty bombs aren't that scary.

Anthrax letters aren't really that scary are they ? What precautions do you see now that people weren't taking before over them then ? I have no idea what you mean by your apparent claim that terrorism is somehow based upon ease... 9/11 was easier than the London bombings..? What ?

quick hypothetical question, if only 53 people died in 9/11 it would be ineffective like you say the july bombings are right? unless kill count isn't the be all and end all of terrorism right?

Yes. If 9/11 had only killed 50 odd people then it would have been ineffective... and..?

well 3 million use the underground each day http://www.directrail.com/london_underground.html and there are 7.9 million living in london unfortunatly i cant find info for busses, but one mill would make it the majority

okay, doesn't really matter anyway.

damn pedant, so where were the rucksacs? on people, where were the people? some in busses some in trains.

You miss the point : What did happen after the bombings was a prolonged -- ongoing as far as I know -- campaign reminding people over unattended bags and the like.. you know, rucksacks, and lots of places, especially Govt buildings, now search bags or won't permit them into buildings. But this, apparently, is the British just carrying on as if nothing had happened.. really ?

not sure really (to many figures to find) but lets assume it is so i can make a point about irelivence, would a bomb going off in a bus be more terrifying to the general people if they use more public transport? right?

..err... not quite sure what you mean here. Do you think that the population of London would have been more affected if Big ben's clock Tower and/or Westminster bridge had suddenly been destroyed, rather than a few trainlines and bus routes being closed...?

yeah have to give this to you, but again destruction isn't the be all and end all or dirty bombs aren't scary and i'm not part of "some school of thought here that after 9/11 every American is or was suddenly cowering in hiding, terrified to go outside".

some of the scars left from 9/11 are still there, which is the point i'm making

..okay.. for sure. My grandad still doesn't like Germans due to WW II.. and ?

i don't use capitals unless i copy the capitals or abriviations

.. I can assure you, your writing style has been duly noted by all.

eg0u80bf wrote:some of the scars left from 9/11 are still there, which is the point i'm making

And it's a pretty piss poor point at that. It's not an issue of national character, it's the fact that one killed thousands, tore a chunk out a major city that still hasn't been completely repaired, and destroyed a pair of world renowned landmarks, while the other was a failure on most counts, and killed tens.

If three thousand people had been killed on 7/7 and Big Ben had been knocked down I imagine there would have been a bit more pronounced of a reaction.

Hey, what would the British equivalent of the Pentagon be?

Hmm.. I guess the closest would either be Northwood.

In London I guess the M.O.D. ( our D.O.D) offices in Whitehall possibly.

Most infamous building relating to this being the SIS building, which you might have seen in Bond films etc etc.

http://edition.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/europe/09/21/britain.mi6.building/index.html

"two moats" , God Bless tradition eh !

Frazzled wrote:Irrelevant. When he planted the bomb he had the intent to plant the bomb. Period. End of Story. Why are you defending this guy?

1.) Due Process
2.) Innocent until proven guilty

Personally, I think the matter of Entrapment, though rarely effective as a defense, could be applicable here.

-Yad