LA terror plot stopped in LA

Am I reading the original post right, and this nut was going to blow up white nationalist rallies AND Jewish people? That seems… odd from a terroristic perspective.

Everything seems to be going swimmingly here, just wanted to be sure and clarify that I never used the word “entrapment.”

I strongly doubt “provide fake explosives” is the first step in all this. Of course law enforcement should be monitoring the internet, but just as most people saying “I’d like to kill my wife/husband” aren’t serious and aren’t going to go out and hire a hitman most people talking tough on the internet aren’t serious and aren’t going to get violent, either. But the police do catch a certain number of would-be hitman-employers every year by posing as someone willing to kill for money. And invariably the arrested party screams “ENTRAPMENT!” I don’t buy their excuses, either.

I realize by your structuring this as a series of “or” questions that you want to get me to declare a one-size-fits-all rule here but that’s not my position at all. Replace almost every “or” with an “and” -

Entrapment is a legal issue AND (I hope) the FBI only uses undercover agents in cases where other evidence exists to indicate the subject is serious AND I have no idea if this particular instance was entrapment and neither do you based solely on what the media has reported BUT NO we should not have blind faith in the FBI, that’s why internal review exists and we have civil rights groups watching them.

Stop trying to chop up my stance or change what I say.

What do you know that the rest of us don’t that makes you say the man in custody is DEFINITELY not a terrorist and would NEVER have been a threat?

Good. That means we’re taking idiots with no future who can be turned into suicide operatives off the playing field. That means ISIS can’t recruit them or use them.

There are plenty of people with ill feelings and bigotry who nonetheless manage to get through life obeying the law and NOT killing, or even harming, their neighbors. As I said, I very much doubt undercover operatives are the first step in investing people. There was something beyond just angry blogging that made the FBI suspect this guy was potentially hazardous.

That’s a warm and fuzzy notion I can get behind 100% BUT -

…realistically, that ain’t gonna happen with the conservatives, right-wing, Trump-MAGA types in charge, and

…even if we put real changes in place tomorrow we still have all the currently generated crazies to deal with.

True. But neither are all law enforcement mustache-twirling villains.

Funny, though - most poor people avoid stealing. Golly gee, how about that?

As a general rule when considering the nation at large - no, law enforcement is NOT more deadly or harmful to Americans than criminals. I would be the first to agree we have some shameful and disgusting problem areas, but that doesn’t, as I said, make all law enforcement villains.

I have lived either in Chicago or next door to it since the early 1980’s. I am aware about corruption. I agree that people keeping an eye on the police and limiting their means to abuse power is a positive good.

Are you advocating that we wait for mass murder before we act? How many need to die before we’re allowed to arrest someone for planning terrorist acts?

I think the link here was that he defined himself as being a particular camp and wanted to target everyone NOT part of his camp. Hence, both Nazis and Jews being targets because they weren’t Muslim like him. Or something.

Frankly, I find it hard to wrap my head around some of this stuff.

Alright, I think we’re going in circles now, and need not continue this… the relevant points have been made :slight_smile: Sometimes they catch terrorists, sometimes they make terrorists, sometimes they’re good, sometimes they’re corrupt. Moving on…

The important thing is how many times I got “LA” into the title of the OP. I should have tried harder. :frowning:

Checking other news, he only converted recently. It sounds like he mostly wanted to kill people and joined a camp to get support.

Sorry but you could say the same thing about that dude in new zealand, could have broken up a terror cell for all we know.

Well, no. But you did use the definition. It would indeed be entrapment if they in any way pushed him to commit a crime he would otherwise have not committed.

You post, especially with the short “carry on” posts, seems rather similar to a particular tactic: Rather than prove the guy has been goaded (or entrapped), you switch to a conversation about whether being goaded is okay. This requires people to implicitly accept the premise that he was in fact goaded, and thus allows you to get people to believe something without having proven it.

Of course, maybe that’s entirely an accident. If so, I’m sure you won’t mind if I say this: