We were unable to load Disqus. If you are a moderator please see our troubleshooting guide.
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." ~Benjamin Franklin
and "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable."
And those who see evil and do nothing to stop it deserve neither as well. So...let's just stop the TSA from checking everybody. Go ahead...get on board that plane with those Muslims....be free.
You sheep just dont get it. US officials put the "underwear bomber" on the plane bypassing security. Its False Flags all the way down.
AMEN Sharon. We should pray to the Holy Trinity (Judicial, Legislative and Executive) to protect us from the evil legion of Muslims. Our Gov is an Awesome Gov!
We're up against an enemy so inept we have to do thier planning and supply them.
And we're still losing.
"They" aren't losing. The real goal was a police state, which is what they got.
It's all a bad written script:
Nafis doesn't have to "destroy America." We're destroying the U.S. from within.
"The process of spotting plans before their hatched and stopping violent jihadists before they attack is a complex and Sisyphean one, for every terrorist we take into custody, half a dozen more are inspired to join the fight." (Note to author and the copy editor, if one is employed by The Atlantic: "they're," for "they are," not "their." It's a sixth-grade grammar goof not worthy of professional writers and editors.)
Where's the evidence for each terrorism arrest producing half a dozen more terrorists? The author's implication is that if we didn't arrest people for terrorism, there'd be less of it. Evidence for that?
That said, a filmmaker who'd looked into the FBI's role in 60s violent protests once said that the FBI's never been all that good at fighting crime, but is really, really good at setting up people and at smearing people. That, he said, had really been their focus ever since they were set up. You want crime fought, rely on your local police.
Freedom of Information Act requests have shown time and again that if there was one person (and very often only that one person) in a protest group exhorting violence and saying they knew where to get guns or bombs for it, that person turned out to be working for the FBI. So the use of the agency to bust up dissent, in part by turning it violent to turn the public against it, is hardly a new role for it.
Al Qaeda, a foreign group founded to be violent, may very well deserve such treatment from the FBI (the rest of us don't), but notice that they've been "catching" (or entrapping) wannabes, not actual Al Qaeda operatives.
Well said, you've captured a lot of the conflicting thoughts I have about this. I especially agree with this part of your comment: "Where's the evidence for each terrorism arrest producing half a dozen more terrorists? The author's implication is that if we didn't arrest people for terrorism, there'd be less of it. Evidence for that?"
Yours is the mentality that enabled 9/11 to happen.
My own personal opposition to radical Islam goes back to us foolishly arming the jihadis in Afghanistan in the late 70s, some of whom went on to kill Americans with the very same weapons we bought them. I support government agencies doing their jobs to protect us -- just not macho nonsense INSTEAD of them doing their jobs. They didn't do their jobs to prevent 9/11, either, and it certainly wasn't because I asked them not to.
Macho rhetoric and security theater is easy. Actually doing something useful is harder.
And I don't hold you personally responsible for either terrorism or for the misuse of the taxes we all pay.
Yours is the mentality that leads to a police state coming our way soon. Terrorism is an issue - but the Feds, particularly the Obama adminstration, have used it as an excuse to restrict our personal freedoms to a level unprecedented since WW2.
'Counter-Terrorism' has become the 21st Century version of McCarthyism.
I'm gonna have to go ahead and say that these 'terrorists' aren't really much of a threat when the 'elite task forces' in charge of taking them down are babysitting them the whole time. For example, a belligerent 4-year-old that isn't getting those cookies he wants isn't really a threat until you give him a gun.
Protip to terrorists: if someone says they can give you C4, they are a cop and you will be arrested. DERP!
If they knew what he was up to why not just deport him? He's a 21 year old idiot with bad ideas. Why not try to correct his ideas instead of letting him bring it to fruition? Seems the FBI is more keen on patting itself on the back then actually reducing terrorism.
The statement "We haven't seen a terrorist attack on American soil in over a decade" Is simply false. The time square bomber was a terrorist, and he was only caught because his truck didn't blow up. The underwear bomber? Same thing. So if you're very specific about what KIND of terrorist attack you're talking about, then there have been attacks but they failed. If you're not randomly limiting the scope of the terrorist attacks, then there have been plenty in the last ten years. Some guy who drove his plane into an IRS center because of his vague right-wing anti-tax stuff? I'd call that a terrorist attack. The attack on the Sikh temple by other right wingers? I'd also call that a terrorist attack. I'm sick of journalists dismissing the deeply troubling tactics of the FBI and law enforcement with the "we haven't seen a terrorist attack" nonsense. We went 8 years between the first attack on the world trade center to the second. Was that the FBI keeping us safe, or was that just the normal period of time between attacks by actual, terrorists who weren't coached by the FBI?
these are the very questions I was contemplating as I heard this story on the radio today. I keep getting the sense that there's a little bit of entrapment going on. it also seems that all of these would-be terrorists are a little on the slow side. are smarter terrorists just too smart to attempt such plots because they know there's a good chance they'll be caught? what if the FBI informant were not the only one working with the hapless terrorist? what if the guy happens to get lucky and acquire explosive material through other channels, and shows up to meet his informant accomplice with an actual bomb? if the government can find these people so easily, why are we coaxing them into carrying out a fantasy attack? why not just try them for plotting or whatever and boot them out of the country? just seems like a lot of extra effort (read, money) to push these guys to the point of pressing the trigger when it's clear pretty early on that they intend to do harm.
Only 3 things have happened:1] The FBI will want more money because they have 'proven' they can 'stop' the 'terrorists'2] We the taxpayer have another mouth to feed in federal prison3] We are no safer from the real terrorists of which there are very few and who are mostly abroad attacking embassys and such. Why are we no safer? Because the government spends our money on this sort of monkeyshines instead of embassy security.
You forget #4: Obama gets some points for being 'tough on terror'. As we've seen so many times before, the timing of this incident seems more that just coincidental:
- After the first debate, when the economy and jobs (or lack thereof) was the entire focus, immediately afterwards we get the BLS stats - lo and behold, unemployment is below 8%.
- Now, just a few days after the 2nd debate, when terrorism became a big issue, we have the FBI nabbing a 'terrorist'.
- And of course, right after the story about Libya and the video, the Coptic Christian in CA who allegedly made the video is hauled in because of 'parole violations'...and questioned by FEDERAL guys from the DOJ, even though the parole violations are a STATE issue. I believe he is now in custody, I'm not sure who is holding him, or why.
Is there a pattern here? Perhaps the Obama administration is using government agencies to help their re-election campaign?
Should this be investigated? I think so. Should this be tolerated? I think not.
"These aren't easy questions"
They are very easy questions: At any point, Nafis could have said No. But he wanted to be a terrorist. Everything he did was willful. He didn't say No. If so, he's guilty.
However, if there was coaxing and entrapment involved, he's innocent.
IMO the HARD question is: should we be devoting resources to flushing out terrorist wannabees? The resources could probably be put to better use.
Isn't the first time I have questioned these headline grabbing anti terrorist operation.
From start to finish, Recruiting, Targeting, Planning, Equipment, Explosives, all provided by some office of Home Land Security, trying to prove just how badly America need their services and why we as Americans need to just give up a few more rights for our own safety, Also, Obama needed another distraction to take the public's eyes off the Libya fiasco, and His pump up His Street creds as a tough man, for His re election campaign.
Question to all the Nafi fans here --- If you were sitting on the jury at his trial watching the video as he explained in his own words why he wanted to blow up the Federal Reserve Building, would you vote to acquit him? Would you consider yourself a hero for having done so?
It easy to forget that the FBI can't put Nafi away, it's only ordinary people like you on the jury that can do it.
No one is arguing that he shouldn't face serious jail time. We are questioning whether the FBl and the media should be portraying this 21-year-old doofus as a terrorist mastermind. They caught a gullible wannabe jihadist who couldn't tell the difference between an inert bomb and a real bomb.
Don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining.
Wonder if the FBI has ever heard of the term "Entrapment"?
I have always believed that the John Doe that helped McVeigh in Ok city was an FBI agent.
A man who can be so easily compelled to mass murder is a real threat. On the other hand, people in the FBI are ordinary and thus more concerned with personal goals than abstractions. This case will make a lot of people at FBI very famous and later, very wealthy. I have zero pity for the kid and few illusions about the "public" sector.
Mark - "I have zero pity for the kid and few illusions about the "public" sector."
I agree whole heartedly with that. But not with this:
"A man who can be so easily compelled to mass murder is a real threat"
1) He wasn't compelled - if so this case would have no legs to stand on. Unless I don't understand what you mean by "easily compelled" - do you mean that he was talked into it, or that he talked himself into it?
2) A kid like this is not 'a real threat'. To be a 'real threat' you have to have the backing of people with brains, money and power - none of which this one lonely kid seems to have.
What to do with this guy? I'm really not sure.
I am by no means someone who is 'soft on terrorists'. But I am someone who is very concerned about potentilal violations of privacy, civil liberties, and due process arising from current 'counter-terrorist' methods.
The bottom line is....they knew he was of terrorist mindset. If the FBI hadn't helped him with his plans...someone else would have and the FBI would not have control of the situation. Alot of innocent people would have been killed. To do damage...all you need is a willing participant and the rest will come sooner or later. I think they did the right thing. It's no different than a cop posing as a prostitute.
"no different than a cop posing as a prostitute."
And both are wrong.
"If the FBI hadn't helped him with his plans...someone else would have"
You have no proof of that whatsoever. Maybe he wouldn't have found anyone, or something could happen to change his mind. Maybe he'd meet a girl and fall in love and raise a family and forget his idiocy.
Same with the cop posing a prostitute.Maybe the guy wouldn't have found one he liked, one maybe he wouldn't have found one at all, or gotten hit with a pang of guilt or fear, or whatever.
You cannot prove what might have happened, but didn't.
'Terrorist mindset' does not a terrorist make.
But none of that is applicable to Nafsi, because it turns out he followed through and performed actions of his own volition. It's the actions that are criminal, not the 'mindset'.
Nafsi's defense will likely revolve around the question of entrapment. But the Feds know the rules - he'll probably be convicted, although I don't particularly care for the whole business.
Do you know what the Supreme Court calls it when a peace officer lies to a subject of an investigation? Good Police Work. Do you know what they call it when the subject of an investigation gives false information to a Peace Officer? A crime. This whole business is so warped that it doesn't make sense any more. The perverse outcome of this is that it is never good advice to talk to Peace Officers.
What's a 'peace officer'?
If he wants to "destroy America" he should become a parasitic banker, drug maker or CIA director.
This is an important operation and it is more important that it is publicly known, the real value is in sowing distrust among potential terrorist to prevent actual bombings in the future. Now next time a legit terrorist wants to set up an op and doesn't have all the goods he is going to think twice about asking his little mosque friends where he can get some stuff. One sting like this could prevent any number of attacks before they happen by creating the seeds of mistrust within the terrorist community, all without anyone on either side getting killed. (drones)
"the 53rd foiled terrorist plot since 9/11"and 9/11 was a planned attack that was allowed to go unfoiled to the end. Truth will appear soon
Tell us (phoneyName) 'Abu': What other whisperings have you heard in the mosque basement?
For evil to win good man have to stand around and do nothing .