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.

dogma wrote:

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.

I'm sure the FBI has certain sites that they monitor more closely than others.

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.

Exactly, as long as they don't find out about the still in back...er pile of junk er look over there!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote: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.
***No, thats what you're suddenly arguing about.
Therefore, the point is that this may not be the best use of the FBI's time, despite public fear regarding terrorism.
***And thats why you don't work for the FBI.
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.
***And you have this on authority from where?

Monster Rain wrote:
I'm sure the FBI has certain sites that they monitor more closely than others.

Of course they do, and its perfectly acceptable to do so.

I'm not really saying that the FBI was in the wrong.

I'm merely capitalizing on Frazzled's refusal to read threads.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:No, thats what you're suddenly arguing about.

I'm stating exactly the same argument that Phryxis made in the original post; essentially verbatim.

Frazzled wrote:
And thats why you don't work for the FBI.

Wait, its suddenly bad to posit that a government organization might have better uses of its time and taxpayer dollars?

I think at this point you would post a picture of Mussolini.

Frazzled wrote:
And you have this on authority from where?

Come on Fraz, you know that appeals to authority are fallacious. I made a statement that may lead into an argument, whether or not I, or anyone else, has 'authority' regarding that argument is irrelevant.

dogma wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:
I'm sure the FBI has certain sites that they monitor more closely than others.

Of course they do, and its perfectly acceptable to do so.

I'm not really saying that the FBI was in the wrong.

I'm merely capitalizing on Frazzled's refusal to read threads.

Ah. Enjoy!

Come on Fraz, you know that appeals to authority are fallacious. I made a statement that may lead into an argument, whether or not I, or anyone else, has 'authority' regarding that argument is irrelevant.
****Translation, you pulled your statement out of your ass. got it.

Am I going to have to call the wahhmbulance in here?

Frazzled wrote:Translation, you pulled your statement out of your ass. got it.

No, not really. I've read some research that indicates that the real benefit of police forces is that they create an environment in which people are inherently less hostile not because they fear the police, but because they believe other people fear the police and are thus unlikely to act on malevolent inclinations; meaning there is also less of a reason to behave aggressively.

Its an interesting argument that has about as much integrity as the notion that fear of consequences uniformly affects everyone, but has the benefit of getting around the inconvenient reality that is posed by the nonlinear relationship between the severity of possible consequences and rate of crime.

I no more "pulled that out of my ass" than someone who posits that the primary benefit of police forces is the direct prevention of crime through preemptive apprehension.

I know that you appear essentially incapable of being either civil or thoughtful, but please attempt to at least refrain from entering into arguments that you don't intend to carry.

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

Actually, that's an interesting thought...

You see these guys who get arrested for taking a katana on a plane to Afghanistan to kill OBL... Then you see the FBI arresting some stupid kid for wishing he was a real jihadi...

How long before some dude mounts his own quest to find OBL via the internet, and then meets up with FBI agents posing as terrorists, and then shoots one as his own person war on terrorism?

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.

When you say 'people' you mean Killkrazy, for two posts, on the first page. So not really, then, no.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Monster Rain wrote: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.

I'd say no, then ask if that was really the best use of government resources, and wonder if they should probably be focusing on the people actually providing materials to young lunatics.

sebster wrote:

Monster Rain wrote: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.

I'd say no, then ask if that was really the best use of government resources, and wonder if they should probably be focusing on the people actually providing materials to young lunatics.

They're doing that too, I imagine.

It's just as important to weed out people with the motivation to actually do these things, though.

Monster Rain wrote:They're doing that too, I imagine.

It's just as important to weed out people with the motivation to actually do these things, though.

Do you think that's even possible? The pool of disaffected kids with dreams of ultra-violence isn't small. God, there was at least a couple in my highschool...

You can't get them all, no. But the fewer potential terrorists out there the better.

Also, most of those kids don't have the dedication, courage, or unhinged-ness (if that makes sense) to actually go through with it, even if they were given the chance, materials, opportunity, etc.

I wonder how people would have reacted had the kid been 14 or 15.

dogma wrote:I wonder how people would have reacted had the kid been 14 or 15.

"Oh, that's cute. He must be going to an anime convention or some crazy gak kids are into today."

WarOne wrote:

dogma wrote:I wonder how people would have reacted had the kid been 14 or 15.

"Oh, that's cute. He must be going to an anime convention or some crazy gak kids are into today."

Kids these days. What with their ipods and video games and terrorist conspiracies.

One part that stuck out a bit for me was the whole "my parents won't stop me from doing this," bit.

Ugh. I mean, again, not sure what you do with a 19 year adult that was willing to dial the phone besides put him in jail forever, but this dude is basically just a stupid child.

"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. "

This part stuck out at me. Seems like all of that entrapment talk was pretty pointless. Trying to blow up children who are waiting to see Santa Claus?

Burn him at the stake.

Monster Rain wrote:You can't get them all, no. But the fewer potential terrorists out there the better.

Sure, but is taking one or two kids out of circulation really a meaningful contribution, when those police resources could have been used to stop more dangerous, more connected terrorists?

Thing is, I'm not sure either way.

sebster wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:You can't get them all, no. But the fewer potential terrorists out there the better.

Sure, but is taking one or two kids out of circulation really a meaningful contribution, when those police resources could have been used to stop more dangerous, more connected terrorists?

If Timothy McVeigh or Mohammed Atta had been taken out of circulation I think things might have turned out differently, yes. These people have to start somewhere.

Phryxis wrote:One part that stuck out a bit for me was the whole "my parents won't stop me from doing this," bit.

Ugh. I mean, again, not sure what you do with a 19 year adult that was willing to dial the phone besides put him in jail forever, but this dude is basically just a stupid child.

I mean, since this particular kid is of majority he's going to, and should, face full legal consequences. Though they'll likely be mitigated by his age anyway.

But what if the kid had been a minor? And not the sort of minor that is commonly tried as an adult for severe crimes.

Are we going to start holding 14-year-old kids accountable in the same manner as adults?

If those darn teenagers wanna drink and have sex all the time like gosh darned adults, by golly we'll try them as adults. Statutory rape for everyone.

Monster Rain wrote:If Timothy McVeigh or Mohammed Atta had been taken out of circulation I think things might have turned out differently, yes. These people have to start somewhere.

Well, yeah, but do you think targetting every person who's expressed violent desires for a sting, is going to pick up enough people to be likely to stop the one Mohammed Atta* who actually goes through with it?





*That probably isn't the best example, because there was a whole lot of reasons to think Atta was going to go through with it. But you get what I mean, yeah?

Phryxis wrote:

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

Actually, that's an interesting thought...

You see these guys who get arrested for taking a katana on a plane to Afghanistan to kill OBL... Then you see the FBI arresting some stupid kid for wishing he was a real jihadi...

How long before some dude mounts his own quest to find OBL via the internet, and then meets up with FBI agents posing as terrorists, and then shoots one as his own person war on terrorism?

Now there's a darned good idea. Terrorist season. You could buy a special stamp for your hunting license that would be good only during a specific period, then go track one down.....

Monster Rain wrote:

WarOne wrote:

dogma wrote:I wonder how people would have reacted had the kid been 14 or 15.

"Oh, that's cute. He must be going to an anime convention or some crazy gak kids are into today."

Kids these days. What with their ipods and video games and terrorist conspiracies.

Not these days, you're as likely to have a major school admin freakout.

lol, U.S. high schools. Such a great example of how NOT to make an education system.

Melissia wrote:lol, U.S. high schools. Such a great example of how NOT to make an education system.

I dread to think about what that implies about the millions of adults who have passed through the system over the years and what it has done to your nation as a whole...

Don't dread, go here and ask them to point out, say, Hungary on a map. Go ask them to find Pakistan on a map. Go ask them what happened in World War I (but not II, they probably have played enough games or watched enough hollywood to get a good idea on that). Go ask them who are the biggest three exporters to the United States. Go and ask them to name five countries in Africa. Ask them to name the five most populous religions. Ask them about some of the basic concepts of micro and macro economics. Ask them if they know their local representatives, both house and senate. Ask them if they know who their representatives in the state government are. Ask them if they even know who the mayor of their town is (I admit to not knowing this one, my focus is on a much broader scale). Ask them who the presidents of various countries in Europe are. Hell, ask them who the presidents of Mexico and Canada are-- our border nations. Ask them if Puerto Rico is a part of the U.S.

They probably won't be able to answer these questions.

Just as an aside my wife and I were sat within 5 metres of the Lord Mayor of Stafford (and his wife) at a concert on Satruday.

Have no idea what his name is though.

SilverMK2 wrote:Just as an aside my wife and I were sat within 5 metres of the Lord Mayor of Stafford (and his wife) at a concert on Satruday.

Have no idea what his name is though.

Keith