tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post4444201173484435241..comments2024-03-25T20:06:39.794-05:00Comments on Grits for Breakfast: "Home-grown" terrorists sprung from FBI snitch gardenGritsforbreakfasthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10152152869466958902noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-62815911899880264742008-06-17T03:04:00.000-05:002008-06-17T03:04:00.000-05:00The government has a problem. There aren't any hom...The government has a problem. There aren't any home grown terrorists, as such, so they need to grow some in their garden plot in order to justify their existence. They will expand from this to try and entrap blue eyed blonds or they will manufacture evidence against some 911Truthers before the truth of 911 gets too well known. Or they will join 911Truth and then do an Oklahoma City bombing in order to arrest all 911truthers. Garden plots start small and expand. They also find Ron Paulites "dangerous" because they spread the word about the Constitution...which was actually discussed at a Bilderberg meeting.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-29073572839653327982008-06-16T17:16:00.000-05:002008-06-16T17:16:00.000-05:00Well, my use wasn't that it "raises" a question, i...Well, my use wasn't that it "raises" a question, it was that the assumptions behind the statement rely on not asking the question identified, which IMO is closer to the traditional use. Outside a handful of logicians, though, it's a pretty meaningless linguistic debate that ignores how the phrase has evolved in common usage.<BR/><BR/>Perhaps next you'll travel from blog to blog looking for slip ups on there, their and they're.Gritsforbreakfasthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10152152869466958902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-68708400551257615292008-06-16T15:41:00.000-05:002008-06-16T15:41:00.000-05:00This is a good example of the misue of the phrase ...This is a good example of the misue of the phrase "begs the question." Indeed it does not. BTQ does NOT mean "raises the question" or "Brings up the question." It is a term used in classical rhetoric that basically means the question is framed so that it is assumed to have already been proven. Avoid this misuse, it makes one look uneducated and eager to impress without any understanding.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-21567364954211145572008-06-15T13:22:00.000-05:002008-06-15T13:22:00.000-05:00"Home grown"? Sounds like they were heavily ferti..."Home grown"? Sounds like they were heavily fertilized and kept under a grow-light by the FBI. <BR/><BR/>When I see "home-gown terrorists" -- who should be prosecuted -- I tend to think of the Klan or Minutemen or various neo-Nazi groups. Aren't there enough criminal gangs running around to keep the FBI busy? They sure don't need to grown their own.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-20774100458034347372008-06-15T12:03:00.000-05:002008-06-15T12:03:00.000-05:00"same guys YOU want to investigate all the 'roid h..."same guys YOU want to investigate all the 'roid head cops in the Dallas-Ft. Worth metroplex"<BR/><BR/>True enough, I've suggested them or some other independent agency, perhaps the TX Rangers. But I'm not suggesting they go out and recruit fresh dealers to launch a steroid ring to bust, just follow the investigative trail left by the dead guy. <BR/><BR/>We have to trust and rely on law enforcement, and at the same try to hold them accountable when they're out of line. I don't think that's a contradiction; there's really little other choice.Gritsforbreakfasthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10152152869466958902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-85618340928083504052008-06-15T11:37:00.000-05:002008-06-15T11:37:00.000-05:00You mean like what the FBI did with Tim McVeigh, e...You mean like what the FBI did with Tim McVeigh, et al. in botched incidents at Ruby Ridge and Waco? Somtimes the feds don't need to pay an informant to "create home grown" terrorism.<BR/><BR/>And these are the same guys YOU want to investigate all the 'roid head cops in the Dallas-Ft. Worth metroplex.....<BR/><BR/>-John in HoustonAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-20473016391159412762008-06-15T11:22:00.000-05:002008-06-15T11:22:00.000-05:00jig-man, just for the record, I'm not saying the c...jig-man, just for the record, I'm not saying the cases were entrapment, and I know you're not specifically saying that I did, you're just clarifying the topic, and I agree with your assessment. I didn't follow this case and it's quite possible that over two years these three guys did things that merit the jury's judgment. I didn't hear the facts.<BR/><BR/>However, as a law enforcement policy matter (as opposed to a legal question regarding guilt/culpability of the Ds), using an informant to infiltrate an existing gang is a lot different from the FBI creating its own gang and then busting the participants with trumpets sounding and the agents' bosses giving quotes to CNN. This wasn't a classified ad that said "terrorists wanted," these guys were recruited and groomed for two years, and apparently trained in violence techniques by an instigating US agent (ex-soldier, FBI informant). <BR/><BR/>That creates pretty big risks. What if they'd disappeared in the middle of the "investigation"? It makes me think of Los Zetas, trained by US Green Berets at Fort Benning, GA and now using US commando tactics to undermine Mexican law enforcement on behalf of a drug cartel. To a certain extent, when you're in a hole the first thing to do is stop digging. The US first armed and trained the modern mujahadeen that spawned the 9/11 attackers in the '80s to fight the Russians (since dubbed "Charlie Wilson's war"); let's at least not train any <I>more</I> anti-American Muslim jihadists in terror tactics now that they've turned around and attacked us! Is that too much to ask?Gritsforbreakfasthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10152152869466958902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-86594992509888344572008-06-15T10:50:00.000-05:002008-06-15T10:50:00.000-05:00While I don't know enough about the case to form a...While I don't know enough about the case to form an opinion about the outcome. Here is a little primer on entrapment: Would the defendants have engaged in criminal conduct but for the informant's conduct? If so it is not entrapment. For example: a general internet invitation, "all would be terrorists contact me" would probably not be entrapment anymore than than "anyone who has dope to sell, I am buying" isn't entrapment. The informant going to his completely innocent brother-in-law because he doesn't like him and offering him money to engage in illegal conduct would be entrapment. Further, entrapment is a mixed law/fact issue. Meaning that normally the defense has asked the judge to decide the issue and has lost and is now taking the facts to the jury for them to decide based on the law.<BR/><BR/>If the FBI was a reasonable belief that some societal elements are engaged in dangerously subversively behavior, use of informants is often the only way (legally) to get at them. I don't know that any of us will ever know what their beliefs are based on, unless and until something horrible happens.jigmeisterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01924600460740103836noreply@blogger.com