Ladewig
I lost an avatar bet.
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2001
- Messages
- 28,828
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5108582.stm
The government released information about things the men needed help with. The men asked for uniforms and boots. I question how serious a threat they were given that they needed help acquiring footwear.
David Swidler
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2005
- Messages
- 8,297
Hey, wait a minute! That's how the battle of Gettsburg started!
Elind
Philosopher
Incredible opinions you hold! So as long as terrorists are basically wannabees just starting out with uniforms, they should be left alone? The information here, BTW, is that their wish list included a lot more than that. Boots is all they were given.
Ladewig
I lost an avatar bet.
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2001
- Messages
- 28,828
What?! I did not say that they should be given a free pass. Is that what you think I was implying? If they committed a crime and were not enticed into it, then they should be arrested and tried in a court of law.
My point was that the arrest of these seven men is not really worth a press conference. It is not front-page news.
Elind
Philosopher
Then talk to the press. I already gave my opinion on that score. Seems to me you are now making an issue of a non issue.
SezMe
post-pre-born
Cylinder, thanks for the link to the indictment. Very helpful. I read every word of it. My opinion that this is an unadulterated eff up by the DOJ has been reinforced.
I said ...
... to which Elind responded
Let's take a look at one charge in the indictment, namely that "the conspirators pledged an oath to al Qaeda". It seems to me there are four possibilities:
1. The conspirators wrote and took the oath themselves. Given that these guys are nearly illiterate, the defense will put them on the stand and will demonstate that they had no idea what al Qaeda really is, who is involved, etc. They will demonstrate that they actually had no connection to al Qaeda at all. The oath will look like something a bunch of 10 year-olds would take in their tree house.
2. The FBI guy wrote and adminstered the oath. The first thing the defense will do is pop a bottle of champange. Entrapment.
3. Some local Imam administered the oath. Then the FBI blew it by arresting these guys because they had no earthly possibility of carrying out their "plan" (to use the word loosely) and lost any chance to go after the real threat, the Imam, and his chain of connections.
4. Somebody else administered the oath. See #3, above.
Here's another charge in the indictment:
Reporter: Hey, boss, the AG is going to announce a major terrorist bust, but I think we should ignore it and cover the heist of a pack of bubble gum from the local 7-11.
Boss: Right you are. Nobody cares about in-country terrorist threats. Go get 'em.
Sheeesh.
Here is the actual list of what they wanted from the indictment: "...list of necessary materials and equipment which included radios, binoculars, bullet proof vests, firearms, vehicles, and $50,000 cash." Yeah, that is more than boots. But do you see anything here that will bring down the Sears Tower?
Again, if this indictment justifies the AG holding a press conference to announce a major terrorist bust, we're in very deep doo-doo.
I said ...
... to which Elind responded
Well, it turns out (based on a reading of the actual indictment) that IS the basic premise, namely that they were going after the Sears Tower and a federal building. Therefore, you and I are in basic agreement.
Thanks for saying "almost" because that is NOT what I think. I have already said I am glad the FBI invested some resources to check up on these guys.
Let's take a look at one charge in the indictment, namely that "the conspirators pledged an oath to al Qaeda". It seems to me there are four possibilities:
1. The conspirators wrote and took the oath themselves. Given that these guys are nearly illiterate, the defense will put them on the stand and will demonstate that they had no idea what al Qaeda really is, who is involved, etc. They will demonstrate that they actually had no connection to al Qaeda at all. The oath will look like something a bunch of 10 year-olds would take in their tree house.
2. The FBI guy wrote and adminstered the oath. The first thing the defense will do is pop a bottle of champange. Entrapment.
3. Some local Imam administered the oath. Then the FBI blew it by arresting these guys because they had no earthly possibility of carrying out their "plan" (to use the word loosely) and lost any chance to go after the real threat, the Imam, and his chain of connections.
4. Somebody else administered the oath. See #3, above.
Here's another charge in the indictment:
In other words, 3 guys rode in a care with the FBI agent to meet a fourth guy. Wow, lock 'em up, I say.
You're kidding me, right? The AG announces that he is going to hold a press conference about busting an al Qaeda group saying it was "bigger than 9/11" and that "they were planning a full on ground assualt on the United States" (yes, I did watch the news conference and that is either a quote or a very accurate paraphrase) and you expect the press to ignore it? That it's the "press" making a big deal of it? I can just imagine this scene:
Reporter: Hey, boss, the AG is going to announce a major terrorist bust, but I think we should ignore it and cover the heist of a pack of bubble gum from the local 7-11.
Boss: Right you are. Nobody cares about in-country terrorist threats. Go get 'em.
Sheeesh.
Now horses will have nothing to eat since all the straw has been used up for your strawman. NOBODY said they should have been left alone.
Here is the actual list of what they wanted from the indictment: "...list of necessary materials and equipment which included radios, binoculars, bullet proof vests, firearms, vehicles, and $50,000 cash." Yeah, that is more than boots. But do you see anything here that will bring down the Sears Tower?
Again, if this indictment justifies the AG holding a press conference to announce a major terrorist bust, we're in very deep doo-doo.
Elind
Philosopher
All I hear you complaining about is the AG grandstanding too much. Glad to see you are concerned about effective use of his time but it may also have the effect of passing a message to other wannabees that is worthwhile.
Your interpretation of doodoo is different from mine. Leaving doodoo to walk the streets and not making it clear to anyone listening that that is being swept up, would be a lot deeper doodoo than your whining amounts to.
Your interpretation of doodoo is different from mine. Leaving doodoo to walk the streets and not making it clear to anyone listening that that is being swept up, would be a lot deeper doodoo than your whining amounts to.
SezMe
post-pre-born
Avoidance of substance noted.
Elind
Philosopher
Of course. I avoid doodoo whenever I see it.