20 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

I guess if you believe that Christians = White People, you might have a point. That latest atrocities committed expressly against Christians took place in Sri Lanka, The Philippines, and Egypt. Not a whole lot of white people were targeted.

As my post clearly indicated, I was talking about this particular individual whose target was a 'white supremacist rally' in the US. A whole lot of white people were targeted.

 

Otherwise, you're quite right. Muslims are urged to slaughter Christians wherever they can find them, in the West or in the developing world, doesn't matter at all, except that attacks in the West gain more political attention.

He was saying stuff online, until he got hooked up by the FBI would it have been more than a fantasy?

8 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

He was saying stuff online, until he got hooked up by the FBI would it have been more than a fantasy?

While I am happy that this guy is neutralized, you raise a real issue. How far can police forces go on the scale leading to inducing suspects to commit a crime that they may not have committed without their involvement. 

In this particular case, they went as far as to provide him with 'fake' bombs.

4 minutes ago, candide said:

While I am happy that this guy is neutralized, you raise a real issue. How far can police forces go on the scale leading to inducing suspects to commit a crime that they may not have committed without their involvement. 

In this particular case, they went as far as to provide him with 'fake' bombs.

There's a whole body of law surrounding that issue, known as 'entrapment'.

1 hour ago, RickBradford said:

As my post clearly indicated, I was talking about this particular individual whose target was a 'white supremacist rally' in the US. A whole lot of white people were targeted.

 

Otherwise, you're quite right. Muslims are urged to slaughter Christians wherever they can find them, in the West or in the developing world, doesn't matter at all, except that attacks in the West gain more political attention.

Really? Your post clearly indicated that? Here's what you wrote:

"The ISIS magazines Dabiq and Rumiyah exhort supporters of jihad to carry out terrorist attacks (comprehensively laid out in the article "The Ruling on the Belligerent Christians"), so it is no surprise to see a new convert to Islam signal his good adherence to jihad by trying to blow up white people."

Those documents urged Muslims to kill Christians. They say nothing about killing white people. It's you who made that entirely unfounded inference.

•  

 

And now you claim they were targeted because they were generic white people?  That seems to you the most likely explanation? You think these white nationalists espouse a tolerant view of Islam? You think possibly, just maybe, that might have played some infinitesimal role in his motivation?

Edited April 30, 20197 yr by bristolboy

I don't like entrapment but in cases like this intended terrorists seems OK to me. It's not exactly like luring gay men at toilets is it?

Sent from my Lenovo A7020a48 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

Inflammatory post and reply removed.  

 

11 hours ago, bristolboy said:

It's good to know that the Trump administration takes domestic inspired terrorism seriously:

Department of Homeland Security admits that it "restructured" domestic terror team

 

Ah yes, the same DHS that is not permitted, by order of POTUS, to be critical of Russia.  Good to know people of sound judgement and morals are in charge 

 

 

18 hours ago, candide said:

While I am happy that this guy is neutralized, you raise a real issue. How far can police forces go on the scale leading to inducing suspects to commit a crime that they may not have committed without their involvement. 

In this particular case, they went as far as to provide him with 'fake' bombs.

 

When they use "informants" instead of police I don't think there is any limit to how far they can take it, which is very worrying.

On 4/30/2019 at 10:40 PM, candide said:

While I am happy that this guy is neutralized, you raise a real issue. How far can police forces go on the scale leading to inducing suspects to commit a crime that they may not have committed without their involvement. 

In this particular case, they went as far as to provide him with 'fake' bombs.

The guy was obviously receptive to support for an act of terrorism. Lucky in this case identified and caught in time by a FBI team; not approached by an Islamist cell.

16 hours ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

When they use "informants" instead of police I don't think there is any limit to how far they can take it, which is very worrying.

It all depends on whether the informant is being rewarded in some way for a particular outcome.

5 hours ago, bristolboy said:

It all depends on whether the informant is being rewarded in some way for a particular outcome.

 

What about if the "reward" is not going to jail, or not for as long?

On 4/30/2019 at 9:30 PM, Jingthing said:

I don't like entrapment but in cases like this intended terrorists seems OK to me. It's not exactly like luring gay men at toilets is it?

Sent from my Lenovo A7020a48 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

 

Yes, and I am not trying to claim there was no potential threat posed, however we just have no idea whether he would have done it without their encouragement and help, he may have carried on just talking about it and never done a thing, we have no way to know, and those who only talk about it also get charged, so why wasnt he, why help him do an attack and then charge him, why not when the first crime materialised online?  It wouldnt stick in a developed country, the police would be on trial.

1 hour ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

Yes, and I am not trying to claim there was no potential threat posed, however we just have no idea whether he would have done it without their encouragement and help, he may have carried on just talking about it and never done a thing, we have no way to know, and those who only talk about it also get charged, so why wasnt he, why help him do an attack and then charge him, why not when the first crime materialised online?  It wouldnt stick in a developed country, the police would be on trial.

With these kinds of crimes, I think that the overall society is happy with erring on the side of caution than waiting to act when it might be too late. I just wish they applied to same proactive standard to developing white nationalist domestic terrorists. But they don't. 

51 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

With these kinds of crimes, I think that the overall society is happy with erring on the side of caution than waiting to act when it might be too late. I just wish they applied to same proactive standard to developing white nationalist domestic terrorists. But they don't. 

 

 If its not in the publics interest to wait, then why didnt they charge him at the first instance when he made clear his plan, and instead wait until he had the bombs?

15 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

 If its not in the publics interest to wait, then why didnt they charge him at the first instance when he made clear his plan, and instead wait until he had the bombs?

I reckon legal reasons. You can't arrest someone for talking.

On 5/2/2019 at 2:28 PM, Jingthing said:

I reckon legal reasons. You can't arrest someone for talking.

 

Actually you can and we do in the UK, its a very serious crime to plot a terrorist attack, its even a jailable offense to just download bomb making instructions.  Is it really not a crime to plot a terrorist attack in your county?

44 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

Actually you can and we do in the UK, its a very serious crime to plot a terrorist attack, its even a jailable offense to just download bomb making instructions.  Is it really not a crime to plot a terrorist attack in your county?

Proof becomes an issue, after all, it is just talk. Plotting is, but talking about it isn't, just goofing around.

1 hour ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

Actually you can and we do in the UK, its a very serious crime to plot a terrorist attack, its even a jailable offense to just download bomb making instructions.  Is it really not a crime to plot a terrorist attack in your county?

I'm not a lawyer but I think the intention is to build a prosecutable case with something more concrete. Lots of people may say stuff in a bar like "I want to see my boss dead" but that's not going to convince a jury a convict.

Edited May 4, 20197 yr by Jingthing

25 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Proof becomes an issue, after all, it is just talk. Plotting is, but talking about it isn't, just goofing around.

 

8 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

I'm not a lawyer but I think the intention is to build a prosecutable case with something more concrete. Lots of people may say stuff in a bar like "I want to my boss dead" but that's not going to convince a jury a convict.

 

Clearly it went way beyond some loose talk, not that that in itself is not a crime in the UK these days, much to the disdain of the UN.  He went as far as sourcing bomb making instructions, we've jailed loads of Muslims for just that, there are several teenagers currently in jail for downloading a manual that was placed online by the FBI, it carries a maximum sentence of 15 years, just for a click, as does merely voicing support of terrorist ideals, they had an easy conviction long before he met the informants.

23 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

 

Clearly it went way beyond some loose talk, not that that in itself is not a crime in the UK these days, much to the disdain of the UN.  He went as far as sourcing bomb making instructions, we've jailed loads of Muslims for just that, there are several teenagers currently in jail for downloading a manual that was placed online by the FBI, it carries a maximum sentence of 15 years, just for a click, as does merely voicing support of terrorist ideals, they had an easy conviction long before he met the informants.

And is that UK or USA?

19 minutes ago, stevenl said:

And is that UK or USA?

 

Sorry, I got confused there and thought this was a UK case, of course in the US you have the constitutional right to posses terrorist propaganda and talk about plotting attacks, my bad.  That would be why they waited, we wouldn't have done, the land of the free has a difficult road ahead, it must be very expensive keeping track of all those saying terrorist stuff while waiting for them to act on it, i'm glad we can act early.