Two men arrested for plot to attack Seattle military recruitment center

Originally posted by TheBorg
Notice that the article says that the weapons given to these guys were already made inoperable. This means that the FBI was directly involved in the exchange of weapons to these individuals. They must have been asking what they were going to be using these weapons for, because the FBI has to prove intent to have a conviction, if I recall correctly.

Doesn't this make the FBI complicit in the actions intended by these two, if they knowingly and willfully aided in the arming of two men with evil intent? I fail to see how this is vindication for the War on Terror. I think it's more of an excuse to keep it going myself.

As you said, the report said the FBI supplied inoperable weapons. Let me make it simple: When the trigger is squeezed, no bang-bang. They had nothing more than clubs.

And you think this makes the FBI "knowingly and willfully aiding terrorists"? They are trying to see how far the rabbit hole goes. Is this something huge and involving dozens of well organized would-be terrorists, or just something good ol' Joe and Fred suddenly thought up themselves when they finally worked their way thru Farmer Brown's sheep flock?

reply to post by mike_trivisonno


Can we try not to make these one of those Muslim bashing threads? I just don't feel like doing this today.

Two things:

ONE

These men allegedly approached an informant who alerted a police detective about their intentions..... monitoring allegedly began then..... and then disabled weapons were made available to the unwitting suspects via the FBI...

but wait ....

the informant ALSO purchased these guns too.... (there's a hint that the "informant" was no 'civilian.')

then - when they appear ready to go, bang ... apprehended and rife with damning evidence of many crimes.

Now had they simply continued to watch them, they might have never been able to arrest them for their stated intentions (what if they chicken out? or die in a car crash?) .... so viola! Instant justice!

This is no glowing victory. It seems largely inflated by the governments' own machinations. It's good press.

TWO

They should have been arrested, questioned and, since they gleefully confessed to their intention and desire for a conspiracy of terror, they would have ended up in jail anyway. Except.... no glory for the FBI. Ahem. Sad.

Of course, the police (not the FBI) would have had to expend thousands more dollars in an extended surveillance operations (somewhat subsidized by the DHS' generous anti-terrorism programs) and they would have had to explain the 'cause' for the expense... and the informant would have to 'out' himself... presumably... not something your average FBI agent can easily do.... considering he was a trusted co-conspirator.

----------------------------------------------------------

I do understand what they wanted to do, and I'm sure they would have continued to try. So I think that such accusations should be followed up by the police. The FBI needn't have been involved at all... The magic number is two. This was no "cell" with ties... It appears to have been two zealots who each like the sound of their own voices, feeding on each others vile hatred for the characterization of the world they choose to believe in.

As for the informant... well, think about it.

reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL

More christians bombing muslim countries? Yea that's real peaceful right there. **FACEPALM**

What it boils down to is this: Many of these countries are quite incompatible with our very existence - for reasons that are rather irrelevant to the net result. You can't make peace with them. You could never ship them enough free food, build nice enough houses, or let them rape as many of our school children as they can get their hands on. These types of people (anyone willing to use methods of extortion) will not ever be satisfied with "negotiations." All it boils down to is 'protection money' being paid to thugs.

There are three solutions. Subsidize thugs. Let them blow our # up. Blow their # up.

There is no room for dysfunctional ideals of peace in a world that does not function according to human being's delusional concepts of idealism. You kill what is out to kill you or you die. Plain and simple. You either choose to live or you choose to die. That choice will often come at the cost of another beings' life.

Bombing another muslim country? Bombing another pain in the ass - that's what. I don't care if they are doing it for their god or because they get hard-ons from blowing up people in my country - it's in direct conflict to my interests and existence, and it needs to cease and desist immediately. Failure to do so will result in systematic extermination until the problem ceases.

Not to mention that military is legitimate military target.

Have any idea what Military Enlistment Processing is?

It's where kids fresh out of high school (hell - some still in highschool) and young adults say their goodbyes to their families right before being shipped off to boot camp. You have a few re-enlistees - but the overwhelming majority of the "targets" are no more military than any random highschool student.

It's like trying to sell someone oak seeds for $800 a piece - making the argument that those seeds can be sold on the premise that they are oak tables, cabinets, etc.

reply to post by Aim64C

There is no room for dysfunctional ideals of peace in a world that does not function according to human being's delusional concepts of idealism. You kill what is out to kill you or you die. Plain and simple. You either choose to live or you choose to die. That choice will often come at the cost of another beings' life.

Bombing another muslim country? Bombing another pain in the ass - that's what. I don't care if they are doing it for their god or because they get hard-ons from blowing up people in my country - it's in direct conflict to my interests and existence, and it needs to cease and desist immediately. Failure to do so will result in systematic extermination until the problem ceases.

What did they do directly to you that does not function with your ideals? Were you personally affected? If so you can go and fight the war yourself without the use of my tax dollars. Join some paramilitary army and go do that. Unless someone threatens me, dont go using my tax money.

So what if they decide to bomb or nuke us in retaliation? We started it, then we deserve it because your way of life of bombing people is not appreciated over their so they will stuff and ied up your tube.

What are your interests overseas? Do you have business interests overseas that require bombing libya? Or iraq? Or Afghanistan? How is Iraq over there affecting how you live right now?

Have any idea what Military Enlistment Processing is?

Yes I know what it is, it is part of the military establishment and was still a valid target to the perps.

reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL

What did they do directly to you that does not function with your ideals? Were you personally affected? If so you can go and fight the war yourself without the use of my tax dollars. Join some paramilitary army and go do that. Unless someone threatens me, dont go using my tax money.

The problem with that line of thinking is rather simple: you vote on representatives to the national government - who decide where your tax dollars go. You don't really get a direct say in the matter.

I can just as easily be turned around to say: "If you don't like the way your tax dollars are being spent - by all means, feel free to take yourself to another nation."

So what if they decide to bomb or nuke us in retaliation? We started it, then we deserve it because your way of life of bombing people is not appreciated over their so they will stuff and ied up your tube.

What rock were you living under through the 90s and 0xs?

The actions that prompted our involvement in that region of the globe include the '93 bombing of the World Trade Center, bombings of the Marine Barracks, bombings of various Embassies, the Cole bombing - and capitulated with the 2001 World Trade Center attacks.

Why did they do it? At this point - it doesn't really matter. All groups affirmed to these types of behaviors are to be hunted down and exterminated with extreme prejudice. We cannot have our people being bombed and destroyed.

"But Aim - what gives you the right to bomb and destroy them?"

Nothing. We simply have the capability to enforce our will. They will figure out how to live and function without committing to such behaviors or be eliminated. Simple as that. They don't really have much of an option.

What are your interests overseas? Do you have business interests overseas that require bombing libya? Or iraq? Or Afghanistan? How is Iraq over there affecting how you live right now?

No man is an Island.

Part of being in the U.S. is being a unification of nation-states. When terrorists flew planes into the World Trade Center in New York - they weren't just declaring war upon the people in that building - they were declaring war upon that entire state, and the entire nation - with all of its members. The attack was not limited to military. It was directed at civilians - at civilian infrastructure serving no military, defense, or government purpose.

Now, perhaps you're the type to say: "Damn, New York... sucks to be you all - have fun with that."

I'm not. When a group of people cannot live in a manner that respects the generally peaceful lives of "our group" (to include most of what people would call the civilized world) - then it's really no longer an issue of whether or not they have rights - or whether or not they have kids, families, or other things generally connected with human emotions. They are incapable of co-existing with a group I can co-exist with - and incapable of co-existing with my own person. Human or not - their lives are irrelevant to what must happen - their society must change to be compatible with our own. Those that cannot accept that change must be removed. It's a very sound, logical approach to the issue.

Generally speaking - members of extremist groups will not accept that change - and will simply need to be removed to allow for the larger society they are a part of to change.

Yes I know what it is, it is part of the military establishment and was still a valid target to the perps.

Depends upon how you approach it. It seemed to me that you were arguing that it was a valid military target - as to imply it was a military base full of trained personnel who accepted the risks and realities of combat.

From the perspective of it being a valid target as a means of making a statement against the military - that, I could sort of agree with. If they were looking to make a statement against the military - that would be a place they could make a headline: "Gunmen shoot and kill 30 at military enlistment processing" and read the headline in jail. If they were to try that on a 'real base' - the headline would be "Base guards shot and killed two morons attempting an armed assault on the base."

"The pair were arrested Wednesday night after nearly a month of surveillance and recordings by FBI, with the help of an informant recruited to join the plot"

This stinks of false flag B.S....

U.S. federal reps always seem to be hovering over these supposed "terrorists"...

reply to post by Piper96


I heard this was inspired by the 2009 Ford hood shooting.

reply to post by coastlinekid


Generally speaking - we have people employed to track these people and arrest them. It should stand to reason that they are arrested after being monitored. They don't just walk down the street and pull terrorists out of the hedges.

That said - a number have slipped through the process. Fort Hood, for example.

reply to post by coastlinekid

U.S. federal reps always seem to be hovering over these supposed "terrorists"...

So I take it you would rather let would-be terrorists run amuck, bombing, shooting, and blowing up anything they can? Or are you one of those "there are no terrorists, the government are the real terrorists!" people?

The FBI has its flaws, believe me; but when they actually do their job (aka saving civilian lives), then they deserve a big, fat

Good job guys.

reply to post by Judge_Holden


I am sorry, but these so-called federal agencies that have been established to protect the welfare of the American public have lost credibility with me, after looking into the details of numerous "terrorist" incidents, and finding out that the players always seem to be insiders recruited to our side, then set loose, only to be ensnared when the good guys show up AFTER the terrorist event occurs,... ala 7/7 bombings in London, '93 WTC bombing, oh yeah 9/11...


The list is much bigger,...

Originally posted by jerico65
As you said, the report said the FBI supplied inoperable weapons. Let me make it simple: When the trigger is squeezed, no bang-bang. They had nothing more than clubs.

No they didn't, but they didn't know that, now did they? For all they knew, they had weapons that were fully functional, and were going to go on to carry out their plans.

And you think this makes the FBI "knowingly and willfully aiding terrorists"? They are trying to see how far the rabbit hole goes. Is this something huge and involving dozens of well organized would-be terrorists, or just something good ol' Joe and Fred suddenly thought up themselves when they finally worked their way thru Farmer Brown's sheep flock?

Let me use an analogy, if I may. Say that there's a bank robbery being planned, and someone offered to help the robbers by allowing them to use their car to commit said crime, for a cut of the profits. If this person calls the cops after this has been arranged, and the thieves are caught during the robbery, doesn't this still constitute aiding and abetting? They did give up their car for the thieves to get away in after all. Just because they alerted authorities to the plot afterwards doesn't eliminate them from the suspect/accomplice list.

I guess what it comes down to for me is a situation where it sounds to me like I'm being told that it's okay for the FBI to create criminals where none really exist, when they could be better serving the People of this great nation by putting their focus where it belongs... For the record, there are plenty of threats that merit FBI time, So many in fact that I dunno why they feel the need to just make some. For example, there are lots of people dying on our side of the Mexican Border, but we're not cracking down there.

To me, it all just seems too convenient.

TheBorg

reply to post by neo96


I agree they are Muslims and that is the plan for another false flag. The Libya topic is thrown in so the niave Americans who are watching the soap operas will keep believing the propaganda.

Underwear bomber
time square bomber
Jared Loughner
Osama
Tim McVeigh
Oswald
and many more.
Patsies. All of them.

I feel sooooo safe. Why can't the TSA be around to. . . oops.

I wonder if the MSM will brush over the fact that ANOTHER muslim attack failed?

Why don't the so called "moderate Muslims" ever turn these people in? Why won't they cooperate with the FBI?

I really, really, really want to believe that most Muslims are against Islamic fundamentalism/terrorism but I am just not seeing any signs of that being the case. Peter King says it over and over that the mosques and Islamic cultural centers are refusing to assist the FBI.

Originally posted by neo96
my biggest beef is this wont make msm media why? because their muslim.

MSNBC Story
Fox News story
CNN News story
CBS News Story
New York Times article
Washington Post news article

You want some more links, or is this enough to disprove your thesis?

reply to post by schuyler


mainstream tv more than a 5 second news snippet sorry havent disproved anything.

already posted
www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by Piper96


lolol wheres the crime?
what did they actually do?
plot? talk? wrtie? think?


seattle area police and justice systems are among the most corrupt, and we need help really with that.

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by schuyler

 

mainstream tv more than a 5 second news snippet sorry havent disproved anything.

Oh c'mon. Be serious. These are the major MSM outlets in the country, the ones people MEAN when they talk MSM. They are all national with the largest reach and the story is on their front page. I know I didn't put the Portland Oregonian in there, but that's clearly regional. Vogue isn't in there either.

The fact is, the MSM IS carrying the story as is proven by the links above.

Your theory is disproven.