LA terror plot stopped in LA

[bump]

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.

[Sicks_Ate]

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

[Broomstick]

@Reply

So you think the government should test every angry ranter on the internet and provide them preemptively with fake explosives just to make sure they’re not a potential future terrorist? Is that really the best way to identify terrorists? We’d save way more lives by stinging corrupt politicians refusing to fix broken policies.

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.

hat exactly are you arguing here, that entrapment as a legal issue doesn’t exist at all, that the FBI overall uses entrapment only on the most deserving, that this particular instance was not entrapment, or that we should have blind faith in the FBI and give them broad leeway to do their jobs?

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.

So they fail to catch the actual terrorists, manufacture their own to save face, and as a nation we should now feel safer?

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?

They’re going after the low hanging fruit, the dumbest and most vulnerable potential recruits.

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 motives but not the means to enact them, thankfully; why should the FBI provide that means?

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.

Rather than reenacting the tactics of ISIS to use as security theater, I’d rather we spent our budget on creating social conditions less hospitable to extremism to begin with, addressing extreme inequality, racism, and Zionism – factors leading to radical violent Islamism or Naziism – rather than fighting the symptoms of our broken society one IED, real or planted, at a time.

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.

Law enforcement isn’t an island devoid of societal and geopolitical context.

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

Entrapment would be more like finding a poor person desperate for money, planting the money, then actively encouraging them to steal it.

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

Do you think law enforcement is less deadly to Americans than criminals?

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.

Corruption isn’t just real but rampant, and the checks against law enforcement executions are minimal for all but wealthy whites. More police than FBI, but still the suspicion, absent transparent oversight, is warranted.

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.

The point was that this individual, and others like him, may never have done anything if he were not encouraged into it, or if our foreign policy didn’t tacitly endorse Muslim genocide. I guess now we’ll never know.

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?

[Broomstick]

@bump

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.

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.

[Reply]

@Broomstick

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?

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

[Sunny_Daze]

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

[Yllaria]

@Broomstick

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.

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

[Declan]

@Reply

You know, it could be argued that if he had succeeded, he’d be doing the FBI’s ACTUAL job for them. Per NYT:
The FBI’s inaction on white supremacy is killing Americans left and right. He might very well have saved more lives overall if he killed the right Nazis.

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.

[BigT]

@Sicks_Ate

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

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:

WE HAVE NEVER ESTABLISHED IF THIS GUY WAS GOADED INTO ANYTHING.