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.

Duh...people are arguing he was entrapped. Thats an excuse for his attempt to kill many many people. He deserves death by Weinerdogbreath.

Try him for Treason and give him the firing squad.

End Of Story.

Frazzled wrote:Duh...people are arguing he was entrapped. Thats an excuse for his attempt to kill many many people. He deserves death by Weinerdogbreath.

I think people are arguing that the use of the operation was poor when we were better off utilizing resources to find funded and intended terrorists, rather then propping up a 19 year old with a long false trail for him to convict himself with. I doubt anyones said that it was an "excuse" for what he's done. They would just have rathered the agency do something useful with this, rather then capping it off with the capture of a nobody.

But then that would involve a shade of gray, and frazzled is a zebra.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Duh...people are arguing he was entrapped. Thats an excuse for his attempt to kill many many people. He deserves death by Weinerdogbreath.

I think people are arguing that the use of the operation was poor when we were better off utilizing resources to find funded and intended terrorists, rather then propping up a 19 year old with a long false trail for him to convict himself with. I doubt anyones said that it was an "excuse" for what he's done. They would just have rathered the agency do something useful with this, rather then capping it off with the capture of a nobody.

But then that would involve a shade of gray, and frazzled is a zebra.

Tell that to the Fort Hood Shooter.

Frazzled wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Duh...people are arguing he was entrapped. Thats an excuse for his attempt to kill many many people. He deserves death by Weinerdogbreath.

I think people are arguing that the use of the operation was poor when we were better off utilizing resources to find funded and intended terrorists, rather then propping up a 19 year old with a long false trail for him to convict himself with. I doubt anyones said that it was an "excuse" for what he's done. They would just have rathered the agency do something useful with this, rather then capping it off with the capture of a nobody.

But then that would involve a shade of gray, and frazzled is a zebra.

Tell that to the Fort Hood Shooter.

Why, did the FBI give him the gun? They shouldn't of used real bullets.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Duh...people are arguing he was entrapped. Thats an excuse for his attempt to kill many many people. He deserves death by Weinerdogbreath.

I think people are arguing that the use of the operation was poor when we were better off utilizing resources to find funded and intended terrorists, rather then propping up a 19 year old with a long false trail for him to convict himself with. I doubt anyones said that it was an "excuse" for what he's done. They would just have rathered the agency do something useful with this, rather then capping it off with the capture of a nobody.

But then that would involve a shade of gray, and frazzled is a zebra.

Tell that to the Fort Hood Shooter.

Why, did the FBI give him the gun? They shouldn't of used real bullets.

You made the statement they had better utilization of resources. the Fort Hood Shooter proves, if you find a terrorist or one espousing such, you take them out.

Frazzled wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Duh...people are arguing he was entrapped. Thats an excuse for his attempt to kill many many people. He deserves death by Weinerdogbreath.

I think people are arguing that the use of the operation was poor when we were better off utilizing resources to find funded and intended terrorists, rather then propping up a 19 year old with a long false trail for him to convict himself with. I doubt anyones said that it was an "excuse" for what he's done. They would just have rathered the agency do something useful with this, rather then capping it off with the capture of a nobody.

But then that would involve a shade of gray, and frazzled is a zebra.

Tell that to the Fort Hood Shooter.

Why, did the FBI give him the gun? They shouldn't of used real bullets.

You made the statement they had better utilization of resources. the Fort Hood Shooter proves, if you find a terrorist or one espousing such, you take them out.

No, it really doesn't. The cases are incredibly disimilar, but ok. Whatever mang. I know you don't run by any sort of real world logic so I'll just accept that a psychiatrically damaged military psychiatrist who had active contact with an extremist cleric is just like a 19 year old who the FBI talked to, convinced to act, provided the means for, then caught all by their lonesome. Black is white, war is peace, the center encircles us and you can buy dehydrated water at all 7/11 locations.

Melissia wrote:Or a troll, either way, you need mental help so hey, here's the number to my psychologist.

(███)███-████

If you have a psychologist, you should fire them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

jp400 wrote:Try him for Treason and give him the firing squad.

End Of Story.

Yep. I don't see the problem with the FBI arresting people who when given the opportunity to possibly blow up a bunch of people, take the opportunity.

If an undercover agent asked me if I wanted to blow up a bunch of kids, I'm pretty sure I'd say no.

Monster Rain wrote:If an undercover agent asked me if I wanted to blow up a bunch of kids, I'm pretty sure I'd say no.

I'm pretty sure I'd shoot that person in the face.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Duh...people are arguing he was entrapped. Thats an excuse for his attempt to kill many many people. He deserves death by Weinerdogbreath.

I think people are arguing that the use of the operation was poor when we were better off utilizing resources to find funded and intended terrorists, rather then propping up a 19 year old with a long false trail for him to convict himself with. I doubt anyones said that it was an "excuse" for what he's done. They would just have rathered the agency do something useful with this, rather then capping it off with the capture of a nobody.

But then that would involve a shade of gray, and frazzled is a zebra.

Tell that to the Fort Hood Shooter.

Why, did the FBI give him the gun? They shouldn't of used real bullets.

You made the statement they had better utilization of resources. the Fort Hood Shooter proves, if you find a terrorist or one espousing such, you take them out.

No, it really doesn't. The cases are incredibly disimilar, but ok. Whatever mang. I know you don't run by any sort of real world logic so I'll just accept that a psychiatrically damaged military psychiatrist who had active contact with an extremist cleric is just like a 19 year old who the FBI talked to, convinced to act, provided the means for, then caught all by their lonesome. Black is white, war is peace, the center encircles us and you can buy dehydrated water at all 7/11 locations.

He was also posting on websites the FBI was monitoring, espousing global jihad. Thats how they found him. He was a terrorist, quit defending it.

Phryxis wrote:I've heard of a few of these deals where agents hear some kid prattling about jihad, they offer to give him a van full of explosives, and then arrest him when he tries to use it.

Ranting about jihad on the internet is probably a bad idea in the first place. Just because someone is an idiot doesn't mean they're not dangerous. Insert George Bush joke here.

Frazzled wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:If an undercover agent asked me if I wanted to blow up a bunch of kids, I'm pretty sure I'd say no.

I'm pretty sure I'd shoot that person in the face.

Nah, that's too quick.

Throw them to the Shanker.

It would have been a lot quicker and cheaper to arrest him for posting on websites.

Kilkrazy wrote:It would have been a lot quicker and cheaper to arrest him for posting on websites.

You can't put a price on Justice, KK.

Kilkrazy wrote:It would have been a lot quicker and cheaper to arrest him for posting on websites.

Thats not illegal here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Monster Rain wrote:

Phryxis wrote:I've heard of a few of these deals where agents hear some kid prattling about jihad, they offer to give him a van full of explosives, and then arrest him when he tries to use it.

Ranting about jihad on the internet is probably a bad idea in the first place. Just because someone is an idiot doesn't mean they're not dangerous. Insert George Bush joke here.

Frazzled wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:If an undercover agent asked me if I wanted to blow up a bunch of kids, I'm pretty sure I'd say no.

I'm pretty sure I'd shoot that person in the face.

Nah, that's too quick.

Throw them to the Shanker.

Good point. The Shanker hasn't eaten any snakes in what, a week? He's getting hungry...

Not yet.

sexiest_hero wrote:Not yet.

He was also posting on websites the FBI was monitoring, espousing global jihad. Thats how they found him. He was a terrorist, quit defending it.

I didn't say he wasn't a terrorist, but then again this is why I dismissed you in the first place. You are incapable of having a conversation without somehow fitting the person you're talking to into a little box. I'm the terrorist sympathizer, woo. Get a new trick, this ones old and bad.

Frazzled wrote:
I'm pretty sure I'd shoot that person in the face.

Then you would be arrested for murder and, at the very least, end up charged with conspiracy to commit terrorism.

So, you would probably be better off not shooting them.

Frazzled wrote:
He was also posting on websites the FBI was monitoring, espousing global jihad. Thats how they found him. He was a terrorist, quit defending it.

So, wait, does that mean your posting habits here are precisely indicative of your beliefs and intention?

If I ask you if you want to blow up a bunch of kids, should your first statement be taken as a tacit threat of bodily harm with respect to me?

Should you therefore be arrested on suspicion of attempted murder?

dogma wrote:If I ask you if you want to blow up a bunch of kids, should your first statement be taken as a tacit threat of bodily harm with respect to me?

You seem to be glossing over your own implied craziness in asking the question in the first place.

Its not illegal to be risk averse.

dogma wrote:Its not illegal to be risk averse.

I suppose it would really depend on the phrasing of the question then.

ShumaGorath wrote: You are incapable of having a conversation without somehow fitting the person you're talking to into a little box.

You're just jealous because all the voices talk to me!

Monster Rain wrote:
I suppose it would really depend on the phrasing of the question then.

The point is that simply saying something on a website isn't sufficient grounds to arrest someone.

Even "To Catch a Predator" relies on the predator in question showing up at the planned spot.

dogma wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:
I suppose it would really depend on the phrasing of the question then.

The point is that simply saying something on a website isn't sufficient grounds to arrest someone.

Even "To Catch a Predator" relies on the predator in question showing up at the planned spot.

Wait a minute.

What are we talking about?

If the guy in the OP hadn't gone through with a terrorist plot, he wouldn't be in trouble, right?

Monster Rain wrote:

dogma wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:
I suppose it would really depend on the phrasing of the question then.

The point is that simply saying something on a website isn't sufficient grounds to arrest someone.

Even "To Catch a Predator" relies on the predator in question showing up at the planned spot.

Wait a minute.

What are we talking about?

If the guy in the OP hadn't gone through with a terrorist plot, he wouldn't be in trouble, right?

Conspiracy to commit murder or terrorism is still a crime.

ShumaGorath wrote:Conspiracy to commit murder or terrorism is still a crime.

Right. I'm pretty sure that's what I was saying. Am I still drunk?

I'm terribly confused. Do I agree with Mr. Gorath on something?

Monster Rain wrote:
If the guy in the OP hadn't gone through with a terrorist plot, he wouldn't be in trouble, right?

Sure, but does that mean the FBI should now be wandering around Frazzled's neighborhood, asking him if he wants to blow up a bunch of kids, in order to induce him to carry out attempted murder (or murder, as the case may be)?

I mean, he posted on a website advocating an illegal course of action, so clearly he may intend to commit murder when given the opportunity. That type of person shouldn't be a part of free society.

Monster Rain wrote:

dogma wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:
I suppose it would really depend on the phrasing of the question then.

The point is that simply saying something on a website isn't sufficient grounds to arrest someone.

Even "To Catch a Predator" relies on the predator in question showing up at the planned spot.

Wait a minute.

What are we talking about?

If the guy in the OP hadn't gone through with a terrorist plot, he wouldn't be in trouble, right?

Right. That was the point I was making, they didn't arrest the guy for foaming at the mouth on the intranets, they discovered him doing so and had reasonlable suspicion to begin the investigation. He's charged with thinking he was about to go blow up dozens/hundreds at a Christmas ceremony.

dogma wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:
If the guy in the OP hadn't gone through with a terrorist plot, he wouldn't be in trouble, right?

Sure, but does that mean the FBI should now be wandering around Frazzled's neighborhood, asking him if he wants to blow up a bunch of kids, in order to induce him to carry out attempted murder (or murder, as the case may be)?

The FBI knows better than to trifle with that particular Texan.

dogma wrote:I mean, he posted on a website advocating an illegal course of action, so clearly he may intend to commit murder when given the opportunity. That type of person shouldn't be a part of free society.

So then when they follow up and find out that he's not actually trying to shoot anyone, the investigation would end there.

The man in the OP went a lot farther than internet crazy talk.

Frazzled wrote:
Right. That was the point I was making, they didn't arrest the guy for foaming at the mouth on the intranets, they discovered him doing so and had reasonlable suspicion to begin the investigation. He's charged with thinking he was about to go blow up dozens/hundreds at a Christmas ceremony.

No one said that isn't why he was charged. What's being argued is whether or not internet posting is sufficient grounds for the provision of opportunity to commit a crime by authority figures.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Monster Rain wrote:
So then when they follow up and find out that he's not actually trying to shoot anyone, the investigation would end there.

The man in the OP went a lot farther than internet crazy talk.

Sure, but you're missing the point entirely.

Investigations cost money, and it would be pretty expensive to follow up every single crazy internet ramble that entailed violence with an investigation that turns on the provision of opportunity. So expensive that it would preclude a whole ton of potentially more important police work.

Therefore, the point is that this may not be the best use of the FBI's time, despite public fear regarding terrorism.

Then again, since police forces tend to be more about making people feel warm and fuzzy than actually preventing crime, public fear may be a legitimate motivation.

dogma wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:
If the guy in the OP hadn't gone through with a terrorist plot, he wouldn't be in trouble, right?

Sure, but does that mean the FBI should now be wandering around Frazzled's neighborhood, asking him if he wants to blow up a bunch of kids, in order to induce him to carry out attempted murder (or murder, as the case may be)?

I mean, he posted on a website advocating an illegal course of action, so clearly he may intend to commit murder when given the opportunity. That type of person shouldn't be a part of free society.

1. Shooting a child murderer would get you nobilled in Texas. So cool.
2. You're assuming they're not now. Come to think of it, we have new neighbors and they always have that van parked right out in front. Better nuke it from orbit. Its the only way to be sure.