Does the U.S. government manufacture terrorism? If so, why?

[Juror No. 8]

Since the idea of government-manufactured or false flag terrorism is still a foreign, if not completely outrageous, concept to most people, I am going to start the thread off with a few links from various sources to set the table and get the discussion moving in the right direction.

From a recent New York Times op-ed:

THE United States has been narrowly saved from lethal terrorist plots in recent years — or so it has seemed. A would-be suicide bomber was intercepted on his way to the Capitol; a scheme to bomb synagogues and shoot Stinger missiles at military aircraft was developed by men in Newburgh, N.Y.; and a fanciful idea to fly explosive-laden model planes into the Pentagon and the Capitol was hatched in Massachusetts.

But all these dramas were facilitated by the F.B.I., whose undercover agents and informers posed as terrorists offering a dummy missile, fake C-4 explosives, a disarmed suicide vest and rudimentary training. Suspects naïvely played their parts until they were arrested.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/29/o...elped-along-by-the-fbi.html?_r=2&pagewanted=1

That was published on the 29th of April. Then, a day or two later, we learn about this ridiculous plot:

I feel safer already. After recruiting five of the dumbest crack heads in the city of Cleveland, Ohio and convincing them to "blow up a bridge", the FBI halted the operation just in time -- a move that wasn't too difficult considering the FBI plotted the whole thing to begin with.

And thanks to the FBI, we have all been saved from the masterminds of evil shown in the pictures below. As you can clearly see, these evil geniuses were a clear and present threat to America's national security. If the FBI hadn't stopped them in Cleveland, no doubt they would have gone on to break the Pentagon's high security encryption, acquire the launch codes to nuclear missiles, and unleash a global thermonuclear war through sheer brain power alone.

Here are the mug shots of the five mastermind villains now thwarted by the clever FBI:

http://www.naturalnews.com/035757_FBI_terror_plots_false_flag.html#ixzz1tvnc4AXs

Does the FBI really do this, and if so, why? What could possibly be gained by the FBI infiltrating groups of angry or mentally unstable young men - Muslim or otherwise - and inducing them with money, weapons, training, and equipment to carry out terror attacks they probably wouldn't have attempted to carry out without the FBI's encouragement?

Here's a very interesting video that attempts to answer this question. I highly recommend watching this one:

http://youtu.be/VswdzWA6T-s

How far does this government-manufactured terrorism go back? Is it only a recent tactic? Does anybody here remember the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993? Was that one manufactured as well?

Again, from the New York Times:

Law-enforcement officials were told that terrorists were building a bomb that was eventually used to blow up the World Trade Center, and they planned to thwart the plotters by secretly substituting harmless powder for the explosives, an informer said after the blast.

The informer was to have helped the plotters build the bomb and supply the fake powder, but the plan was called off by an F.B.I. supervisor who had other ideas about how the informer, Emad A. Salem, should be used, the informer said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/29/o...elped-along-by-the-fbi.html?_r=2&pagewanted=1

This makes me wonder, does the FBI stop some of these plots while strategically allowing some of them to result in full-fledged terrorist attacks? Is it possible the 9/11 attacks were set up in the same way, under the watchful, approving eye of the U.S. government so it could justify an aggressive, militaristic foreign policy that the American public would never support otherwise?






​

 

[Mick West]

I think the FBI does make too much use of entrapment. I don't think that constitutes evidence for "manufactured terrorist".

It's interesting that he included the Hutaree militia in there as he rattled of a list of things that are supposed to have been invented to make us think the threat of Islamic terrorism is real, seing as they were not Islamic, and seemed to pose a real threat.

The Ohio bridge plot was alos not Islamists. What's up with that?

I'm also not clear why conspiracy theorists seem to think that terrorists don't exist. Has every successful "terrorist" attack in recent times been manufactured? Or are there some real terrorists?

If you think everything is manufactured, then everything you see will confirm your belief.

 

[Juror No. 8]

I think the FBI does make too much use of entrapment. I don't think that constitutes evidence for "manufactured terrorist".

What does it constitute evidence of then? I mean, if the FBI supplies someone with money, equipment, and weapons to engage in terrorism when there's no evidence to suggest that they would have engaged in terrorism without the FBI's encouragement, was the terrorist threat real and organic, as we are led to believe, or was it only manufactured through FBI manipulation?

It's interesting that he included the Hutaree militia in there as he rattled of a list of things that are supposed to have been invented to make us think the threat of Islamic terrorism is real, seing as they were not Islamic, and seemed to pose a real threat.

What's interesting about it? The point of the video is fake, FBI-manufactured terrorism. Does it really matter if the fake terrorism comes under the Islamic banner or domestic terrorist banner? Is that really all you're concerned about?

The Ohio bridge plot was alos not Islamists. What's up with that?

Why, who said it was?

I'm also not clear why conspiracy theorists seem to think that terrorists don't exist.

Straw man.

Has every successful "terrorist" attack in recent times been manufactured? Or are there some real terrorists?

Probably. It's just so hard to tell anymore when governments are so involved in the manufacture of terrorism.

If you think everything is manufactured, then everything you see will confirm your belief.

Obviously, the same would apply to those who believe all terrorism is real.

Do you think it's at all possible that the attacks of 9/11 could have been the result of the U.S. government covertly funding, supplying, and training a bunch of radical Muslims, encouraging them to attack, and then instead of foiling the attack at the last minute as with these FBI operations, they simply allowed the attack to proceed? And then, in the aftermath, the U.S. government just stonewalled the investigation and 9/11 Commission, ensuring that the real origins of the attack never reached the public?

 

[Mick West]

Do you think it's at all possible that the attacks of 9/11 could have been the result of the U.S. government covertly funding, supplying, and training a bunch of radical Muslims, encouraging them to attack, and then instead of foiling the attack at the last minute as with these FBI operations, they simply allowed the attack to proceed? And then, in the aftermath, the U.S. government just stonewalled the investigation and 9/11 Commission, ensuring that the real origins of the attack never reached the public?

It makes more sense than the controlled demolition theories. But no, I don't think that's very likely.

 

[SR1419]

Do you think it's at all possible that the attacks of 9/11 could have been the result of the U.S. government covertly funding, supplying, and training a bunch of radical Muslims, encouraging them to attack, and then instead of foiling the attack at the last minute as with these FBI operations, they simply allowed the attack to proceed? And then, in the aftermath, the U.S. government just stonewalled the investigation and 9/11 Commission, ensuring that the real origins of the attack never reached the public?

I do think it is possible there was some complicity or foreknowledge of the attacks...but given what we supposedly know of the movements of Atta et al in the months prior to 9.11- I highly doubt the CIA bought their box cutters for them.

Of course, complicity or foreknowledge does not mean that the buildings collapsed due to controlled demolition.

 

[Juror No. 8]

I do think it is possible there was some complicity or foreknowledge of the attacks...but given what we supposedly know of the movements of Atta et al in the months prior to 9.11- I highly doubt the CIA bought their box cutters for them.

Of course, complicity or foreknowledge does not mean that the buildings collapsed due to controlled demolition.

Does the question of controlled demolition even matter anymore if our government was complicit in and had foreknowledge of the attacks, but didn't stop them because they desperately needed an excuse (a new Pearl Harbor) to pursue a criminal, neocolonial foreign policy of war, occupation, and resource exploitation in the Middle East?

 

[Juror No. 8]

It makes more sense than the controlled demolition theories. But no, I don't think that's very likely.

What do you think makes it unlikely?

 

[SR1419]

Does the question of controlled demolition even matter anymore if our government was complicit in and had foreknowledge of the attacks, but didn't stop them because they desperately needed an excuse (a new Pearl Harbor) to pursue a criminal, neocolonial foreign policy of war, occupation, and resource exploitation in the Middle East?

Oh sure it matters as it is part of the entire puzzle...

But there is little, if any, evidence for any of the above.

 

[Juror No. 8]

But there is little, if any, evidence for any of the above.

Just as there is little, if any, credible evidence for the official 9/11 conspiracy theory (Al-Qaeda planned it and acted independently, no U.S. government complicity or involvement, U.S. government caught truly off guard, etc...).

That doesn't stop people from believing it, though.

 

[SR1419]

Just as there is little, if any, credible evidence for the official 9/11 conspiracy theory (Al-Qaeda planned it and acted independently, no U.S. government complicity or involvement, U.S. government caught truly off guard, etc...).

That doesn't stop people from believing it, though.

There is far more evidence to support the "official" version of the events than any other theory.

 

[Juror No. 8]

There is far more evidence to support the "official" version of the events than any other theory.

Sure, but only if you're counting the evidence the government has allowed you to see.

You're assuming the U.S. government was honest about its role in the attacks, or hasn't withheld any incriminating evidence. I don't make that assumption.

 

[Mick West]

Presumably all the other governments in the world are in on the plot too? At least the big ones.. Russia, China, India, Europe - they all know that the official story is bogus, but they are just playing along?

 

[Juror No. 8]

Presumably all the other governments in the world are in on the plot too? At least the big ones.. Russia, China, India, Europe - they all know that the official story is bogus, but they are just playing along?

Why would those foreign governments need to be in on the plot too?

Does the FBI require the involvement of foreign governments when they manufacture fake domestic terrorism? If not, why would the CIA require the involvement of foreign governments when they manufacture fake foreign terrorism?

Of course, it is possible that foreign governments were involved in some way, but not absolutely necessary.

 

[Mick West]

Because they would find out who was really behind it. I mean if you can figure it out, don't you think the Kremlin knows exactly what is going on?

 

[Leifer]

Does the FBI require the involvement of foreign governments when they manufacture fake domestic terrorism? If not, why would the CIA require the involvement of foreign governments when they manufacture fake foreign terrorism?

Those countries (Russia, China, India, Europe) also have domestic terrorism. Are they faking it too ?
Do you believe it is impossible for domestic terrorism to exist ?
To what extent, draws the line for you...in a real/or fake domestic terrorist act ?
Isn't a lone gunman shooting at a gov't official....terroristic ?
....Then, instead of just one person, add another person (partner/friend) involved in the act .....that makes two people angry (or insane) enough to act on their feelings/emotions.

You seem to think it is not quite possible that some people dislike their gov't enough, to act-out their beliefs in crazy ways.
Murderers and other criminals often act beyond-and-outside the law........to vent their emotions....whether those be domestic, social, and gov't -ways/angers.

 

[Juror No. 8]

Because they would find out who was really behind it. I mean if you can figure it out, don't you think the Kremlin knows exactly what is going on?

Suspecting something or figuring it out is a far, far cry from having inside knowledge or being "in on it".

How would Russia, for instance, know for sure if an undercover CIA agent posing as a Muslim radical was funneling U.S. government money into Al-Qaeda's coffers in an effort to get them to carry out terror attacks against U.S. interests? And assuming they did know somehow, would you believe such a headline if it appeared on the front page of Pravda? Would you believe the corrupt Russian government over your own corrupt government?

This argument that 9/11 couldn't have been a U.S. government inside job because foreign governments would have known and told us so doesn't seem to be based on more than wishful thinking.

 

[Leifer]

There, you said it yourself.......

Suspecting something or figuring it out is a far, far cry from having inside knowledge or being "in on it".

...so even you don't/can't know......and suspicions are pointless without facts.

I don't care if someone has suspicions (like you or me)....it's the facts that count, not suspicions.

 

[Mick West]

J8, since your broader argument seems to be based on your superior understanding of history, I'm curious as to how you arrived at that superior understanding? What sources did you use? How do you know they are accurate?

 

[Juror No. 8]

J8, since your broader argument seems to be based on your superior understanding of history, I'm curious as to how you arrived at that superior understanding? What sources did you use? How do you know they are accurate?

What does this question have to do with government-manufactured terrorism? Is it an attempt to change the subject, or is there some connection?

 

[Mick West]

It's to do with your broader argument. I think that the FBI is just making too much use of entrapment in order to fight terrorism. You think that they are manufacturing terrorism to control the public perception. We both have the same basic facts, but your interpretation (or this and other things, like the words of JFK) is based on your different understanding of history.

So how did you arrive at that understanding.

 

[Juror No. 8]

Those countries (Russia, China, India, Europe) also have domestic terrorism. Are they faking it too ?

I don't see why government-manufactured terrorism would just be a U.S. phenomenon. A lot of governments like to deceive their populations.

Do you believe it is impossible for domestic terrorism to exist ?

Of course not. People can terrorize each other whether they work for the government or not.

To what extent, draws the line for you...in a real/or fake domestic terrorist act ?

I don't think I understand your question.

Isn't a lone gunman shooting at a gov't official....terroristic ?

Are we going by the most common definition of terrorism, or some other, more wide-reaching definition? In general, I'd say no, somebody merely shooting at a government official isn't necessarily terrorism.

....Then, instead of just one person, add another person (partner/friend) involved in the act .....that makes two people angry (or insane) enough to act on their feelings/emotions.

I don't understand where you are going with this. Are you trying to change the subject away from government-manufactured terrorism too?

You seem to think it is not quite possible that some people dislike their gov't enough, to act-out their beliefs in crazy ways.

Straw man.

Murderers and other criminals often act beyond-and-outside the law........to vent their emotions....whether those be domestic, social, and gov't -ways/angers.

Uh, that's great, but what does it have to do with government-manufactured terrorism?

 

[Mick West]

Uh, that's great, but what does it have to do with government-manufactured terrorism?

I think the point that Stupid was making was that terrorist exists. There are people, both domestically and across the globe, who engage in terrorist acts, or seem like they are about to. It has always been this way. When I grew up in Englad the IRA were blowing things up on a regular basis. Now the threat is more from Islamic terrorists, and in the US you also have the militia terrorists.

The FBI is very proactive in addressing this problem. They seem to favor entrapment to catch people before they actually get to doing something. They may be over-zealous in their entrapment.

Summary: Terrorism exists, hence entrapment is not a conspiracy to trick the public into thinking terrorism exists.

 

[Juror No. 8]

It's to do with your broader argument. I think that the FBI is just making too much use of entrapment in order to fight terrorism.

Pray tell, what terrorism is the FBI really fighting if the terrorism they are fighting is the terrorism they are encouraging people to engage in?

You think that they are manufacturing terrorism to control the public perception.

That's clearly what they are doing. This was also the motivation behind the planning of Operation Northwoods and Gladio.

Government is all about perception management. After all, it's very difficult to control men if you can't control their minds.

We both have the same basic facts, but your interpretation (or this and other things, like the words of JFK) is based on your different understanding of history.

So how did you arrive at that understanding.

I'm not so sure we have the same basic facts, but that's not really important, as I don't see what this has to do with the subject of the thread. To me, it looks like a naked attempt at a derailment using a form of epistemological jousting. You're going to ask me how I know what I know and I am going to ask you how you know what you know and this thread will just turn into a pointless circle jerk.

 

[Mick West]

If we don't have the same facts, then what facts am I missing?

 

[Juror No. 8]

Summary: Terrorism exists, hence entrapment is not a conspiracy to trick the public into thinking terrorism exists.

This is yet another blatant straw man.

The question isn't, "does terrorism exist?". The question is, "does the government manufacture, through the process of entrapment, more terrorism, and the threat thereof, than would otherwise exist?".

Would the American people support the War on Terror if they knew most of the terror was created by the government themselves?

 

[Juror No. 8]

If we don't have the same facts, then what facts am I missing?

You said we have the same basic facts.

How do you know this?

 

[Mick West]

See, I like to talk about facts, and facts vs. bunk. I like to be able to show if something is right or wrong, or at least if it's based on good or bad evidence and reasoning.

But when we are talking about interpretations of events, or interpretations of what someone said, and we come to radically different interpretations, then perhaps the fundamental facts that we differ over are to be found elsewhere. There's an underlying set of "knowledge" that each of us has on which we build these divergent conclusions. A lot of the knowledge is shared - but there must also be differences.

Are these simply differences at an intuitive level, or differences at a factual level? What actually are the differences? Are they some big facts that one of us has got wrong, or is it an avalanche of subtly skewed observations that push us in one direction?

I think that unless we attempt to focus on the lower level disconnects then it's the higher level disagreements that actually are the circle jerk.

 

[Juror No. 8]

Mick, you are trolling your own board. Nobody could be this disingenuous unless they were intent on trolling.

I asked you this very pertinent question in one of the above replies:

Pray tell, what terrorism is the FBI really fighting if the terrorism they are fighting is the terrorism they are encouraging people to engage in?

Which you predictably proceeded to ignore to instead ask me a pointless question about "basic facts":

If we don't have the same facts, then what facts am I missing?

As if this question has any relevance at all to the thread.

Is this how it's really going to be?

 

[Mick West]

Pray tell, what terrorism is the FBI really fighting if the terrorism they are fighting is the terrorism they are encouraging people to engage in?

That's a rather loaded question, as it assumes that they are only fighting terrorism they invented.

They are fighting foreign and domestic terrorism. Foreign like 9/11, and domestic like the Oklahoma City bombing.

 

[Juror No. 8]

See, I like to talk about facts, and facts vs. bunk. I like to be able to show if something is right or wrong, or at least if it's based on good or bad evidence and reasoning.

But when we are talking about interpretations of events, or interpretations of what someone said, and we come to radically different interpretations, then perhaps the fundamental facts that we differ over are to be found elsewhere. There's an underlying set of "knowledge" that each of us has on which we build these divergent conclusions. A lot of the knowledge is shared - but there must also be differences.

Are these simply differences at an intuitive level, or differences at a factual level? What actually are the differences? Are they some big facts that one of us has got wrong, or is it an avalanche of subtly skewed observations that push us in one direction?

I think that unless we attempt to focus on the lower level disconnects then it's the higher level disagreements that actually are the circle jerk.

This post is a textbook example of a thread derailment.

Yes, let's not discuss the OP at all. Let's change the subject to something completely unrelated.

 

[Juror No. 8]

That's a rather loaded question, as it assumes that they are only fighting terrorism they invented.

Well, that is the subject of the thread.

They are fighting foreign and domestic terrorism. Foreign like 9/11, and domestic like the Oklahoma City bombing.

And this assumes that both 9/11 and the Oklahoma City bombings were real, genuine examples of terrorism and not government-manufactured in some way.

 

[Juror No. 8]

Can we at least agree that there is a very big difference between real, organic terrorism and government-manufactured terrorism (entrapment, covert ops false flags, etc...)? One constitutes a genuine threat while the other constitutes a fabricated threat used to justify some unannounced agenda?

 

[Mick West]

Can we at least agree that there is a very big difference between real, organic terrorism and government-manufactured terrorism (entrapment, covert ops false flags, etc...)? One constitutes a genuine threat while the other constitutes a fabricated threat used to justify some unannounced agenda?

Well no, and this is getting closer to our root disagreements. I could agree that entrapment results in a manufactured threat, but I see that as a consequence of the use of entrapment to catch terrorists, not to justify some unannounced agenda.

The theory of using entrapment is that some groups will eventually commit acts of terrorism, so by enabling them you control the process, and can stop them. Unfortunately I think you get people swept up in the process who are simply blowhards, people who like to talk, but would not do anything.

Then again, you could argue that if they actually went along with it, then they were in fact a real threat - had they actually been exposed to a real terrorist, or just someone else of like mind.

 

[Mick West]

Terrorism is very real of course, have a look at this incomplete list of terrorist incidents in 2011:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents,_2011

Here's one of the ten US incidents:

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/arres...ack-plot-sting/story?id=13586174#.T6VduJ_rBGE

Was that a manufactured threat in your opinion? Or a valid concern?

 

[Mick West]

This post is a textbook example of a thread derailment.

Yes, let's not discuss the OP at all. Let's change the subject to something completely unrelated.

But it's not a derailment. We agree on the basic facts of the various cases you list. We agree that the FBI encouraged the "terrorists" and supplied them with resources, even suggested targets.

Where we disagree is the motivation. You say it's all part of a big PR exercise, I say it's a consequence of excessive use of entrapment.

So we need to figure out WHY we disagree. What's are the reasons why we reach differing conclusions? Is there missing information? Are there fundamental things that one of us has got wrong?

Simply disagreeing is not productive. Let's find out why we disagree. What's the ACTUAL root difference here?

 

[Juror No. 8]

I could agree that entrapment results in a manufactured threat, but I see that as a consequence of the use of entrapment to catch terrorists, not to justify some unannounced agenda.

You're putting the cart before the horse by calling the targets of FBI entrapment "terrorists" before they've either committed an act of genuine terrorism or been manipulated by the FBI into committing a manufactured act of terrorism.

The theory of using entrapment is that some groups will eventually commit acts of terrorism, so by enabling them you control the process, and can stop them. Unfortunately I think you get people swept up in the process who are simply blowhards, people who like to talk, but would not do anything.

In other words, by using this process of entrapment, the FBI and the U.S. government can make the real or perceived threat of terrorism much larger than it actually is in reality by sweeping up a bunch of non-terrorists in with the real terrorists.

Without using entrapment, the FBI might only be able to announce once per year that they caught any real terrorists. But by using entrapment, the FBI can announce five times per year that they caught terrorists. This would lead the public to believe that terrorism is more ubiquitous than it really is.

Then again, you could argue that if they actually went along with it, then they were in fact a real threat - had they actually be exposed to a real terrorist, or just someone else of like mind.

If your wife spends a year trying to get you to buy her flowers, and after a year of her persistent cajoling you finally buy her flowers, did you buy them because you were really a romantic guy or did you buy them just because she convinced you to? If you were truly a romantic guy, wouldn't you have bought her flowers without her having to be in your ear about it for a year?

 

[Mick West]

The idea of using entrapment is to catch the terrorists well before they get close to carrying out an attack. It's a wide net. It probably will catch some people who would not actually have carried out any terrorist attacks.

Let's say I want to kill my wife, the FBI hears this, they supply me with a fake gun, I shoot at my wife with it, and the FBI arrest me for attempted murder. If the FBI never gave me the gun, then I'd probably never have attempted to shoot my wife. But some people DO shoot their wives. If the FBI were to infiltrate all wife haters in this manner it would effectively flush them out.

Yes, it will boost the numbers, but it will also prevent actual terrorist attacks. I think preventing terrorist attacks is reason they run these entrapment and sting operations. Even if in many individual cases it might not have amounted to much, it's still worth doing if it prevents some actual attacks.

As a side effect, I think the pervasive threat of infiltration is an effective deterrent that makes it difficult for real terrorist to operate.

 

[Juror No. 8]

Terrorism is very real of course, have a look at this incomplete list of terrorist incidents in 2011:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents,_2011

Here's one of the ten US incidents:

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/arres...ack-plot-sting/story?id=13586174#.T6VduJ_rBGE

Was that a manufactured threat in your opinion? Or a valid concern?

I don't know. These men might have been induced by their informant/handler into planning something they may not have ever planned on their own. One of them looks to be mentally-deficient:

That's the entrapment scenario Fink suggested last week for suspect Ahmed Ferhani, a troubled young man with a history of mental problems who stands accused of plotting to bomb a Manhattan synagogue.

Fink claimed the NYPD had targeted the 27-year-old Ferhani precisely because of his troubled past, which includes, she said, 30 involuntary commitments to psychiatric wards since age 17.


"A surface examination of Mr. Ferhani's record reveals his extensive mental health records, including involuntary commitments facilitated by the NYPD beginning when he was 17 years old, and his criminal record," Fink stated in court papers.


Those papers seek disclosure of all Ferhani's conversations with the main NYPD undercover officer who investigated him, a man who called himself Ilter and is known officially as "UC 242."


"Clearly there exist scores of reports and summaries that memorialize the NYPD's selection of Mr. Ferhani as their target," Fink charged

Fink also charged that the police were aware of Ferhani's mental history because of repeated 911 calls his mother had made to get help subduing him.

"It will be our contention," say Fink's court papers, "that Ahmed Ferhani was specifically selected for his vulnerability — his mental state, his anti-social record and his drug use — and over a six-month period entrapped into buying weapons so that another 'terrorist' could be paraded before the press and public…."

http://nypdconfidential.com/columns/2012/120319.html

Would the FBI or NYPD target mentally vulnerable people like this? I certainly don't see why not.

 

[Juror No. 8]

The idea of using entrapment is to catch the terrorists well before they get close to carrying out an attack. It's a wide net. It probably will catch some people who would not actually have carried out any terrorist attacks.

What if the majority of people caught through entrapment would not have carried out terrorist attacks? In other words, what if the majority of all the terrorism we ever hear about in the War on Terror is manufactured by the FBI to make terrorism seem more prevalent than it really is?

Wouldn't you think this perceived prevalence of terrorism would alter the public's perception a bit? Maybe make them more paranoid about terrorism than they really should be? Maybe make them support more of a police state than they otherwise would?

Let's say I want to kill my wife, the FBI hears this, they supply me with a fake gun, I shoot at my wife with it, and the FBI arrest me for attempted murder. If the FBI never gave me the gun, then I'd probably never have attempted to shoot my wife. But some people DO shoot their wives. If the FBI were to infiltrate all wife haters in this manner it would effectively flush them out.

That sounds like a great way to justify either hiring more FBI agents (expanding the size of government) or to make it seem like there are more wife killers than there really are, which would also serve to justify the expansion of government.

Hmmm, I think you are on to something.

Yes, it will boost the numbers, but it will also prevent actual terrorist attacks.

Assuming, of course, the FBI has any real interest in preventing real, organic terrorism, which I don't necessarily assume. The FBI has a vested interest in allowing some terrorism to occur, just as a window repairman has a vested interest in broken windows.

I think preventing terrorist attacks is reason they run these entrapment and sting operations. Even if in many individual cases it might not have amounted to much, it's still worth doing if it prevents some actual attacks.

I disagree. I think they run these entrapment operations so they can perpetuate the myth of ubiquitous, threatening terrorism, expand the police state, enact onerous laws, justify foreign interventions, and crack down on domestic liberties.

As a side effect, I think the pervasive threat of infiltration is an effective deterrent that makes it difficult for real terrorist to operate.

Maybe. On the other hand, it might cause them to become more sophisticated, more alert, and tougher to catch.

 

[Mick West]

I disagree. I think they run these entrapment operations so they can perpetuate the myth of ubiquitous, threatening terrorism, expand the police state, enact onerous laws, justify foreign interventions, and crack down on domestic liberties.

I know you do. The question here is WHY you think that. What's the evidence to support it? Why do you think that, but I don't? What am I missing? Whats the root difference?