~~~Alert~~~FBI Fear Mongering~~~Alert~~~

So,

IMHO, the definition of "fearmongering" would be to take a mundane event, publicize and exaggerate it to the extreme, and then make some political statement or effect some end motive by it.

In the OP, we have a completely non-explosive event that resulted in no injuries and only minor inconveniences. The materials used were not the correct materials to make an explosive, and even a sophisticated combination of those materials would not have resulted in a significant explosive because the fertilizer had been "neutered" after the Timothy McVeigh incident.

Then, we have the FBI do a thorough investigation of the suspect and make some loose connections to some International organizations that are loosely defined as terroristic in nature, and the only connection is visits to websites, but it is sufficient for them to label the suspect as a terrorist.

Then, we have the FBI employ explosive experts to get the correct materials, mix them in the correct manner, and ignite them under ideal circumstances and show what the extreme worst case scenario could be.

Then, we have the FBI make a video tape of the incident and publish it 1 month before mid-term elections.

Does this fit the definition above?

reply to post by getreadyalready


Lets say a community vote was coming up to raise Red Light ticket fines.

1 month before the vote, the local police department picks a random red light runner and does a thorough investigation into their computer and background. They find some links where this person happened to check gas prices online and rental truck prices online and Real Estate prices in another town. They conclude that this person could conceivably rent a giant truck, fill it with gas, and drive it to another town.

Then, they find all the school bus routes in the town, and they decide that occasionally a school bus does pass through that intersection.

Then, they get stunt drivers and explosive experts and they take a giant truck filled with gasoline and the run it through the red light into a hypothetical school bus full of children in rush hour traffic! They videotape the whole thing and publish it just before the vote comes up! They say this red light runner could have killed dozens of people, done millions of dollars in damage, and effected traffic for days or weeks in the area! They decide to charge him for attempted manslaughter and various computer crimes and conspiracy and make him an example to all the other potential red light runners.

Then they put out a public service announcement that raising red light ticket fines will help prevent "tragedies" such as this one.

Seem ridiculous?
Yet familiar?

We can't fall for this stuff, and we can't criticize the OP and call him a fearmonger for pointing out the obvious.