Fox host likens Oregon terror 'entrapment' to East Germany

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by FPB214

 

Kind of like saying if someone has ever had an alcoholic drink, that they are bound to kill someone in a car accident while they are driving drunk.

In this case, the analogy would be that the FBI took him to the bar, paid for his drinks until he was drunk, bought him a car, gave him the keys, sent him down the street and pushed a baby carriage out in front of him.

Perfect analogy

Uh.. what? No that analogy is not a good analogy, people like to leave out key elements.

The analogy would work better if the Oregon guy was likened to a guy whom had had a whole lot of drinks already, drove himself to the bar, then when he got in yelled " I WANNA GET F***ED UP!" until the another patron (the FBI) approached him bought him more drinks, helped him find his keys, and then watched to see if he would drive.

edit on 1-12-2010 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)

Okay. Your analogy is a fail because the kid didn't blow up any bombs before he met the FBI, so the part about the guy driving to the bar already drunk doesn't fit.

Let's use your analogy, but let's switch the word 'patron' with 'Undercover Police Officer'.

Then read it again. It should be obvious that there is something wrong with both parties involved in the analogy, but the police officer is sworn to uphold the law!, making him the one that is doubly wrong.

The FBI has become a terrorist training camp.
Should the military bomb them now ????

Slippery slope into an Orwellian Society,
when TPTB become the thought police
it's def time for change.

The kid is innocent and this is
pure entrapment.

They did it for publicity and more
budget appropriations by instilling fear
of terrorism in the homeland. They
need a new boogeyman since Bin Laden
has played out.

Every agent associated with this case
ought to face charges of terrorism and let
the kid get back to his PS3.

reply to post by boondock-saint


The kid is not innocent. He essentially put a gun to someones head, pulled the trigger, twice, and it jammed.
He didn't know why, but he knew it was bad and did it anyway.

That is a very naive statement. Nice touch with the PS3 comment.
I didn't know people were using their PS3s to try to get in cahoots with terrorist agencies.

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow


The question is whether the kid tried to get into "kahoots" with a terrorist entity or whether the FBI tried to get the get into terrorism.

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow


Well actually, the point for teens in the military, is that they live. At leat that's what we teach them to do. I actually think it's a good idea for teenagers to join the military at such a young age, as that is when they are most "moldable" and to it quite frankly, they are in just as much danger, say if they live in the housing projects of LA or NOLA. You don't have them join the military with expectations of dying for their country, so much as to make the other guy die for his country. Also, these kids can drink if stationed in a country with a drinking age of younger, like Germany or even Canada.

However, I do find fault with such aspects as prosecuting children as adults at the age of 14. If they aren;t mature enough for the "priveledges" of an adult, such as drinking or even watching rated "R" movies, then they shouldn't be held to the same responsibilities either. We are basically admitting that they don't have the responsibility of an adult, yet we hold them to that responsibility.

However, if it was up to me, I would leave the drinking age to the parents. It should be the parents' decision on what their children can or can't do or should and shouldn't do. It should also be the parents' responsibility on what their kids do do. These days, the government pretty much forces parents out of the picture, by over-riding their say on matters.

This particular kid was just barely old enough to watch a raded "R" movie, yet he is expected to be mature enough to reject an entity that knows how to play on someone's emotions or lack of emotional stability to entrap him.

All in all, there are laws against entrapment for a reason and it's not so that we can allow potential criminals to get off the hook, but rather to preserve freedom and justice. In my opinoin, the entrapment is only compounded when you employ it against a child.

So, while I don't think the kid is completely innocent ethically speaking, I do think that he just may be legally innocent, at least as to how the law is supposed to be.

"He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself." --Thomas Paine



--airspoon

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
We live in a country where thoughts are not illegal.

Not for long...



But the law also says if you leave your keys in your car ignition and someone steals your car, they will charge YOU as well, because you provided the opportunity to steal your car

I guess that doesn't apply to the feds

reply to post by airspoon


I will respond in full when I'm not walking out the door, but real quick on the teens comment.
I wasn't saying they shouldn't be allowed to enlist at that age. I was just pointing out that it's a little dumb that they can enlist and aren't allowed to drink.

reply to post by zorgon

But the law also says if you leave your keys in your car ignition and someone steals your car, they will charge YOU as well, because you provided the opportunity to steal your car I guess that doesn't apply to the feds

Good point.

There are a lot of municipalities passing those type of laws now. It is incredible. I guess you will be arrested for having a big-screen TV in your house if someone decides to steal it, if things get any worse.

reply to post by FPB214


It doesn't matter if he would've done it or not.....

You don't have the right to punish someone, likely for the rest of their LIFE....based on what they might've or even would've done. That is thought crime, it is 1984, it is WRONG!!!!!!

Jaden

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
I was just pointing out that it's a little dumb that they can enlist and aren't allowed to drink.

I know several bars in Vegas that accept military ID as 'good'nugh'

I don't think it will be hard to prove he intended to kill people, or that he took steps to do it.. But as the judge put it, it's entrapment if the feds planted the seed. Which I could see the argument. We don't know at this point what his intentions were when he attempted to contact the jihadi people...

reply to post by airspoon


It seems to me the Feds have been designing these "terrorist" attacks and trying to entrap targets into their schemes quite a bit lately. They did it with that militia group and now this guy. They need that terror thrill to justify their nasty KGB apparatus. If the terrorists won't work fast enough, they will just have to push it along. It is wrong.

Brainwashed Sheeple are having a real hard time with this one. They even can see the role of the FBI in a set-up and it is so obvious that they must make some kind of sense out of it. Their brainwashed thoughts are the FBI must have had a reason to do this - because after all this kid must be guilty of something.

The FBI told us that Lee Harvey Oswald, James Earl Ray, Randy Weaver, David Koresh, Timmothy McVeigh, Terry Nichols, Muhammad Atta, Bruce Edwards, Umar Abdulmutallab were all guilty so you know we can TRUST them that Osman is guilty also.

reply to post by airspoon


you could easily tell the young men in Oregon terror was brainwashed.

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by zorgon

 

But the law also says if you leave your keys in your car ignition and someone steals your car, they will charge YOU as well, because you provided the opportunity to steal your car I guess that doesn't apply to the feds

Good point.

There are a lot of municipalities passing those type of laws now. It is incredible. I guess you will be arrested for having a big-screen TV in your house if someone decides to steal it, if things get any worse.

I cant wait for one of these charges to actually be made. The Federal Appeals court, provided it ever gets that far, will have these laws chucked so fast it will make heads spin. This is like saying because you left a 3 dollar tip on the table for your waitress, and someone stole it and bought a few bullets and killed someone, that you are responsible for that.

At what point did we move from holding people accountible for their actions to the path of least resitance in terms of screw going after criminals, its easier going after the law abiding people beause they after all are responsbile for crime by having a job, going to work, and spending money to stimulate the economy.

^----- O Reilly is disgusting.

Let's not forget also that the
F.B.LIES also paid for/ assisted/and COOKED-
the explosives for the first bombing of the W.T.C.
Their M.O.remains the same.It is Treason.

If the FBI had made him a real bomb and left him blow it up in a crowd of Christmas merry-makers....

What would we know about it?

False flags are apparently easy for the FBI to do. Someone burned an Islamic temple in Portland right after it happened. They can make us jump through hoops with very little effort.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
The thing is, Oregon has no entrapment laws, which is one thing i found so interesting here.

Very good catch there sir, damn, it's got dirty these past few years hasn't it.

reply to post by Masterjaden


I like 1984. Fact is, if he tried to dial the numbers, whether he created the bomb or not, he tried detonating it to kill innocent Americans. So it actually does matter whether he would've did it or not, in my opinion. Like I said, the kid thought this was his break, these guys were the "right" guys he needed to commit his jihad against non-muslims, he stepped in and took the opportunity and tried to detonate a bomb. Luckily, the right guy was the FBI.

As for the FBI being behind the first WTC bombing, I understand why people including myself do not fully trust the FBI or any government period. If I heard correctly, the FBI were the ones who gave the guy the bomb, but the plan "went wrong" or "backfired", and because of that we can say that the FBI were pretty much behind the bombing of innocent Americans. So the FBI is not perfect, but the kid had bad intentions and given the chance, especially now, he might possibly do it again.