Vehicle Bomb Plot at Christmas tree lighting ceremony

[antsi]

According to the story I read, the guy may have had some intent, but the plot was fabricated in its entirety by the Feds. Sure, he may have decided to do it, but the feds incited him to do it. This seems to be a reoccurring theme in these types of busts. Can't help but wonder if he'd never have done anything if the feds hadn't incited him to.

The FBI recruited him, trained him, propagandized him, and paid him. They were the ones to provide him with the explosives.

OK, so who exactly is the "Terrorist Mastermind Organization" in this plot?

 

[antsi]

In reading the CNN article, it seems that Mr. Somalia wanted to blow-up some people. I don't believe the Feds encouraged him to do this. The article said he had wanted to commit violent jihad since he was 15. This case doesn't seem any different than the ones where a person takes out a "contract" on their spouse. Then when the money is paid, they are arrested because the "contract killer" is an undercover police officer.

There are some lawyers on the board, maybe one of them can explain the technical difference between a legit undercover operation and entrapment.

One way I would think about it; if the operation had acutually gone off, who would be more culpable?

In the case you suggest, a guy already has a beef with his wife and he's already out looking for someone to kill her. He came up with the money and the plan himself, and the undercover cop was just a role player in his scheme.

In this case, the FBI alleges that the guy was cruising jihad websites and sent an email to someone in Pakistan. Then they recruit him, they train him, they provide the money and the bomb.

If the plot had been real, the FBI would be playing the role of the global terrorist organization. They'd be the Al Queda leadership. At best, the guy they arrested would be the role player in the FBI's terrorist plot. In other words, if this plot had been real, we would be wanting to locate the FBI agents who ran this operation and blow them up with a drone strike.

Going back to your original analogy; if it's an undercover cop who goes in and seduces the husband, tells him a bunch of lies about his wife, deliberately breaks up the marriage, hires a nasty divorce lawyer for the wife, and then says, "hey, I know someone who will kill your wife for $1000. And here, I'll loan you the $1K," then I'm not sure the target of the operation is really the criminal element here.

 

[Joe Williams]

Let's see...

Some guy wants to blow up some Americans. The Feds get wind of it, run an undercover op, and keep him from doing it for real.

And, true to form, our resident leftists and anarchists are torqued he didn't get to do it because... why is they are mad again? Would they have preferred he succeeded with a real terrorist attack? It almost seems so.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

Let's see...

Some guy wants to blow up some Americans. The Feds get wind of it, run an undercover op, and keep him from doing it for real.

And, true to form, our resident leftists and anarchists are torqued he didn't get to do it because... why is they are mad again? Would they have preferred he succeeded with a real terrorist attack? It almost seems so.

It's having your cake and eating it too Joe. If the government stings the guy, Libtards claim government overreaching and oppression. If the government does nothing and the guy blows stuff up, same Libtards claim government incompetence and waste of tax money. In either case, Libtards think they win. They all get together and snicker about how smart they are and how dumb the rest of us are.

All manner of Libtard are part of the Hate America and Blame America First crowd.

 

[Steeler]

Let's see...

Some guy wants to blow up some Americans. The Feds get wind of it, run an undercover op, and keep him from doing it for real.

And, true to form, our resident leftists and anarchists are torqued he didn't get to do it because... why is they are mad again? Would they have preferred he succeeded with a real terrorist attack? It almost seems so.

Was just going to post the same thing. The guy was ready to kill americans, ya gotta do what ya gotta do to stop these asslicks.

 

[Hawkeye]

Joe/Semper/Steeleer:

I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't see it that way. I don;t see a problem with runnign the op and tracking the guy, and busting him for what he was planning and tried to do. I do have a problem with the way it was presented in the Press - that they had foiled a big, dangerous plot.

Why? Because there really wasn't a big, dangerous plot as I see it. Seems like there was one deranged individual who the FBI had in their sights and sort of under their thumb all along. From what I can see, there was no real risk. It was the FBI's sting operation and they caught the guy.

As I said in my earlier post, I compare this to the Times Square Bomber...

I do think there is kind of a fine line between a legal undercover sting op and entrapment. I've been out of law school too long to speak to the details on that.

I do think the press hype is misleading and meant to amke people believe that there is a big threat out there that only the Feds and, what I perceive, as violations of the principles of our Constitution can prevent a terrorist attack in the US.

 

[rooster007]

E5RANGER +1


In 1979, the U.S. embassy in Iran was taken over by:
(a) Norwegians from Ballard;
(b) Elvis;
(c) A tour bus full of 80-year-old women
(d) Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40.

In 1983, the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut was blown up by:
(a) A pizza delivery boy;
(b) Crazed feminists screeching that being able to throw a grenade
beyond its own burst radius was an unfair and sexist requirement
in basic training;
(c) Geraldo Rivera making up for a slow news day
(d) Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40.

In 1988, Pan Am Flight 103 was bombed by:
(a) Luca Brazzi, for not being given a part in "Godfather 2;"
(b) The Tooth Fairy;
(c) Butch and Sundance who had a few sticks of dynamite left over
from the train thing
(d) Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40.

In 1998, the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by:
(a) Mr. Rogers;
(b) Hillary, to distract attention from Wee Willie's women problems;
(c) the WWF, to promote its next villain: "Mustapha the Merciless;"
(d) Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40.

October 12, 2000, 17 US sailors lost their lives on the USS Cole and this was done by:
a) That Purple Teletubbie
b) Gary Condit
c) LA Crips street gang
d) Muslim extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

December 2000 a person tries to light a shoe bomb on a commercial jetliner and this was done by:
a) Mother Theresa
b) an Italian guy from New York City named "Giacomo"
c) hard working Hispanic farm workers
d) Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

On 9/11/01, four airliners were hijacked and destroyed by:
(a) Bugs Bunny,
(b) the Supreme Court of Florida trying to outdo their attempted
hijacking of the 2000 Presidential election;
(c) Mr. Bean
(d) Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40.

Let's update:

On 7/7/05, four bombs were detonated on London's tube and bus system by:
(a) Paris Hilton fans
(b) Brittany Spears fans
(c) Regis Philbin
(d) Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40.

On 7/21/05, four bombs that failed to fully detonate on London's tube and bus sytem were set off by:
(a) Wiley Coyote
(b) The ghost of Timothy McVeigh
(c) John Kerry
(d) Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40.

Anyone see a pattern here? Anyone?! Hmm?!

i'M SURE i MISSINED SOMETHING HER BUT OH WELL , WE WON'T EVEN GO ANY FURTHER ON THE DATES

 

[Expat]

rooster, apparently you missed the TSA video. Apparently there has been a run of terrorist acts by hot chicks carrying breast milk. They are keeping an extra special close eye on these dangerous people.

 

[rooster007]

QUOTE " WE WILL USE YOUR FREEDOMS TO DESTROY YOU "

 

[rooster007]

EXPAT ++++++++++1 OH I'M SORRY THAT SHOULD HAVE JUST BEEN TWO PLUSES

 

[antsi]

It's having your cake and eating it too Joe. If the government stings the guy, Libtards claim government overreaching and oppression. If the government does nothing and the guy blows stuff up, same Libtards claim government incompetence and waste of tax money. In either case, Libtards think they win. They all get together and snicker about how smart they are and how dumb the rest of us are.

All manner of Libtard are part of the Hate America and Blame America First crowd.

You profess to love America, but you don't believe in our freedoms. You would destroy the very thing that makes this country great.

This country was founded on a healthy distrust of government power. We have a constitution and courts that limit what the government can do and can't do.

In the last century, terrorists have killed what, 5,000 people? 10,000?
Lawless governments have killed upwards of 200,000,000.
So, yeah, I'm skeptical of what governments say they're up to.

People like you would have made great Communists during the Red Terror. All you need is someone in authority to declare someone an Enemy of the State, and you're pleased to have them imprisoned, tortured, or killed without any sort of oversight or due process. And if anyone questions this - even expresses healthy skepticism - in your mind they're an Enemy of the People too.

I don't know what you are claiming to love, but it sure as hell isn't America.

And no, I am not one of the people crying out for more government protection and bogus "Security Theater" every time there's a terrorist attack. I'd rather live in a free society and take my chances with the terrorists, than live in the kind of authoritarian police state and the illusion of safety under a government that can turn on me at will.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

What freedoms don't I believe in? What is the very thing that makes this country great and how would I destroy it? If you're going to throw these little ad homs out there at least give me a chance to respond.

This country was founded on a healthy distrust of government power? It's only 6:45A and already the insanity begins. This country was founded because an imperial overlord 4,000 miles away treated the colonies like nothing more than a resource to be plundered. You should really study some history sometime. Out of books made of paper. Not just off hate sites on the Interznet.

The Constitution does three things. Establish collective, empower government, limit powers thereof. Your statement doesn't even make sense. In order for power to be limited they must first be granted. You have to acknowledge that part too. It's logic.

People like me stood on the front line protecting this nation from the Communists. Where were you at?

So a guy wants to blow up a Chrstmas tree lighting. The FBI finds out and builds a case, and a fake bomb. The guy tries to blow it up and is arrested. If he's not an enemy of the people, what is he? The FBI got an arrest warrant signed by a judge after presenting evidence. Isn't that due process? I'm all for healthy skepticism. I think it's required. But when you are so blinded by hatred of the government you can't see that some people are just bad and there's a difference between enabling and entraping... I dunno. Can I get some Libtard cookies to go with my Libtard koolaid?

I'm totally against increased government intervention everytime there's a terrorist threat. I don't know what the bogus "Security Theater" thing is.
Sounds like something Stallone would star in. Is it like a secret tinfoil organization with a secret handshake and everything? I don't know. I spend my time shooting stuff and playing with my dogs and grandkids. I don't spend a lot of time hiding from black helicoptors. Maybe I will, if they ever start flying over my house. Thus far I've been pretty lucky and stayed below their radar.

I honestly don't understand this statement "I'd rather live in a free society and take my chances with the terrorists, than live in the kind of authoritarian police state and the illusion of safety under a government that can turn on me at will." Do you really think we live in an authoritarian police state? Don't get me wrong. There's a lot of abuse. Way more than there should be. I don't like all the traffic tickets, and using SWAT to serve warrants seems over the top. I'm not too keen on arresting 12 year olds that write on their desk at school either. There are a lot of examples of epic fails. Be there are millions of examples of good. Cops that regualarly do a welfare check on granny even when off duty to make sure she OK because grandpa died a couple years ago and she doesn't want to move out of her house. A neighbor that cuts another neighbor's grass becuase the other neighbor had a stroke and can't get out like he used to. No one showed up at my house to collect an inventory of the sugar packets or to see if I have stolen Taco Bell Fire sauce packets. I've never been arrested. Try as I might I just can't bring myself to do anything like plot and plan to blow up a Cristmas tree lighting.

Sounds like you want to be angry about something. Maybe I'm wrong. If I am I apoligize. If I'm not you might want to get some professional help, but I'm sure that you think since medical professionals are all licensed by the government they are agents of the state. Dunno. I'm off to shoot stuff. And enjoy life.

You profess to love America, but you don't believe in our freedoms. You would destroy the very thing that makes this country great.

This country was founded on a healthy distrust of government power. We have a constitution and courts that limit what the government can do and can't do.

In the last century, terrorists have killed what, 5,000 people? 10,000?
Lawless governments have killed upwards of 200,000,000.
So, yeah, I'm skeptical of what governments say they're up to.

People like you would have made great Communists during the Red Terror. All you need is someone in authority to declare someone an Enemy of the State, and you're pleased to have them imprisoned, tortured, or killed without any sort of oversight or due process. And if anyone questions this - even expresses healthy skepticism - in your mind they're an Enemy of the People too.

I don't know what you are claiming to love, but it sure as hell isn't America.

And no, I am not one of the people crying out for more government protection and bogus "Security Theater" every time there's a terrorist attack. I'd rather live in a free society and take my chances with the terrorists, than live in the kind of authoritarian police state and the illusion of safety under a government that can turn on me at will.

 

[Expat]

I heard the story this morning. The tapes show the FBI kept asking this POS, are you sure you want to do this? There will be children there you know. He said that was what he was looking for. He was advertising his hatred for America for years. Looks like he got what he deserved.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Antsi, I understand what you are saying, but I disagree with you for the following reasons:

Once catching wind of this plot, it is logical for law enforcement to attempt to take control of it to: 1 - find out if anyone else is involved; 2 - discover the "depth" of the perpetrator's intent (e.g. is he just blowing off steam, or does he really mean to do this?); 3 - once engaged, stay engaged. You do not want to lose track of a suspect once you've identified his intent; 4 - if the intent is solid, provide material you _know_ won't work to ensure the plot fails.

Now, as to advertising the plot, let me make an analogy. If you are in a job where you get a performance appraisal, do you want your bosses to know that you've accomplished good things? If you successfully complete a difficult task, do you conceal the fact or let your boss know about it? If you routinely do a hundred tasks well, do you want prospective employers to know about your work?

From a political perspective, do prosecutors advertise their high-profile cases? Politically, and from a "work success" standpoint, this is no different from a worker wanting to advertise his success to his bosses or a prosecutor advertising his high-profile case; a desire for approval.

The FBI isn't recruiting terrorists; various muslim extremist groups are doing that. The FBI doesn't need to provide bomb-making instruction; the terrorists are doing that all over the internet and in foreign training camps. So Far, no one has successfully detonated a bomb in a crowd - but the ingredients are widely available for anyone so motivated. If the FBI can continue to short-circuit these plots, more power to them for doing it, but the enemy only has to "get lucky" once to succeed; our law enforcement personnel need to "get lucky" _every time_ to foil them. Most on-going investigations are secret; I don't particularly get offended when the government gets to toot its horn for doing one successfully.

 

[antsi]

I totally agree this guy is a sick, deranged, sociopathic individual; a loser mommy's basement dweller pleasuring himeself to jihadi porn on the internet. From all I have read, though, I don't think this guy could have tied his own shoelaces, let alone devise a sophisticated bomb plot all by himself.

This is what I think happened. This loser psycho web surfing fantasy terrorist wanna-be shows up on the FBI's radar. Then they create the plot, provide the money, provide the van, the plan, the fake explosives, the detonating device, and all the rest. Then they arrest the guy, and go to the media crowing "Hey, look at us, we stopped a dangerous terrorist plot and arrested a genius terrorist mastermind!"

I don't shed any tears for the loser psycho. If he's got a combination of crazy and dumb enough to fall into that trap, he deserves what he gets.

What I object to is the FBI spending massive resources on what amounts to a huge publicity stunt. I do not believe this moron they nailed could possibly have been any real threat all by himself. You may argue; "yes, but he's willing to be the tool of some real terrorist organization operating on our soil, so it's important to nail him."

Here's my problem: if there is a real terrorist organization out there, operating on our soil, out looking for psycho moron stooge recruits to pull off this kind of stuff, then THEY ARE THE ONES WE SHOULD BE AFTER. There will always be a plentiful supply of sociopathic losers. If the FBI spends this kind of resources tracking them, they'll never catch up to the people or organizations that are the real threat.

If you want to run a sting, pretend to be the loser psycho stooge and go out fishing for the real leaders. Or else, keep the loser psycho stooge under surveillance while he's fishing around for a real terrorist organization to tap into, then nail them.

Instead, the FBI found their own loser stooge and concocted their own terrorist plot to recruit him for, then creates a media event about how they're out there fighting terrorism for the good people of America.

That's what I mean by Security Theater, Semper. It's not really about security. It's a performance, for an audience. And we're the audience, who's supposed to be sitting on the sidelines cheering for them, and go out and vote for Obama again because his administration is doing such a great job making us safe.

And by the way, Semper, I do certainly respect anyone's service as a Marine, including yours. It's something I never did and I regret that I didn't grow up enough to respect it, or have the confidecne I could do it, until I was way past recruiting age. I may disagree with you all day long, but I respect your service.

And no, I don't think we're in a police state yet. But we're moving that direction, a lot faster than I care to go.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

I totally agree this guy is a sick, deranged, sociopathic individual; a loser mommy's basement dweller pleasuring himeself to jihadi porn on the internet. From all I have read, though, I don't think this guy could have tied his own shoelaces, let alone devise a sophisticated bomb plot all by himself.

This is what I think happened. This loser psycho web surfing fantasy terrorist wanna-be shows up on the FBI's radar. Then they create the plot, provide the money, provide the van, the plan, the fake explosives, the detonating device, and all the rest. Then they arrest the guy, and go to the media crowing "Hey, look at us, we stopped a dangerous terrorist plot and arrested a genius terrorist mastermind!"

I don't shed any tears for the loser psycho. If he's got a combination of crazy and dumb enough to fall into that trap, he deserves what he gets.

What I object to is the FBI spending massive resources on what amounts to a huge publicity stunt. I do not believe this moron they nailed could possibly have been any real threat all by himself. You may argue; "yes, but he's willing to be the tool of some real terrorist organization operating on our soil, so it's important to nail him."

Here's my problem: if there is a real terrorist organization out there, operating on our soil, out looking for psycho moron stooge recruits to pull off this kind of stuff, then THEY ARE THE ONES WE SHOULD BE AFTER. There will always be a plentiful supply of sociopathic losers. If the FBI spends this kind of resources tracking them, they'll never catch up to the people or organizations that are the real threat.

If you want to run a sting, pretend to be the loser psycho stooge and go out fishing for the real leaders. Or else, keep the loser psycho stooge under surveillance while he's fishing around for a real terrorist organization to tap into, then nail them.

Instead, the FBI found their own loser stooge and concocted their own terrorist plot to recruit him for, then creates a media event about how they're out there fighting terrorism for the good people of America.

That's what I mean by Security Theater, Semper. It's not really about security. It's a performance, for an audience. And we're the audience, who's supposed to be sitting on the sidelines cheering for them, and go out and vote for Obama again because his administration is doing such a great job making us safe.

And by the way, Semper, I do certainly respect anyone's service as a Marine, including yours. It's something I never did and I regret that I didn't grow up enough to respect it, or have the confidecne I could do it, until I was way past recruiting age. I may disagree with you all day long, but I respect your service.

And no, I don't think we're in a police state yet. But we're moving that direction, a lot faster than I care to go.

I didn't realize they had released so much information and evidence about how the sting was conducted, who they had talked to, what information they gathered, what other leads they were following, what leads they followed and determined to be dead ends, what other suspects they have, what their real motivation because it certainy wasn't trying to making sure this tweaker didn't blow up a bomb Christmas tree lighting and see if anyone else may be involved.

Where can I gt the details of the operation? The news just says the FBI arrested a tweaker for trying to kill a bunch of people.

 

[Expat]

More details here.

Here is a link to the affidavit

 

[antsi]

More details here.

Here is a link to the affidavit

Bingo.

And I haven't seen anything in any news source that wasn't lifted directly from the affidavit. Our fabulous professional journalists, out there digging into things and investigating them and questioning what's going on... or maybe just parroting what the FBI has been telling them.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

Bingo.

And I haven't seen anything in any news source that wasn't lifted directly from the affidavit. Our fabulous professional journalists, out there digging into things and investigating them and questioning what's going on... or maybe just parroting what the FBI has been telling them.

You do understand that this is just an affidavit to obtain an arrest warrent don't you? It's not charges. It's not evidence. It's a document used to show probable cause to effect an arrest. It's the bare minimum required to get a judge to say go get this guy. In other words it's not even the tip of the tip of the tip of the iceberg.

 

[antsi]

You do understand that this is just an affidavit to obtain an arrest warrent don't you? It's not charges. It's not evidence. It's a document used to show probable cause to effect an arrest. It's the bare minimum required to get a judge to say go get this guy. In other words it's not even the tip of the tip of the tip of the iceberg.

OK, when the evidence comes out that this guy devised the plot himself, got the van himself, built the bombs himself, built the detonator himself, planned the attack himself, or did anything other than just be a moron stooge who pressed a button an FBI agent told him to press, I'll take it all back.