Another FBI-created 'terrorist'

reply to post by BenReclused

You can choose any word you want, the underwear bomber was escorted onto the plane. He didnt even have a passport.


And in this testimony, Kennedy confirms that the a branch of the US government asked that his visa NOT be denied. No dictionary needed, its all very straightforward for those who are able to embrace reality.

5:38 "We have a request from a law enforcement agency to NOT revoke the visa... one of the members said please do not revoke this visa...".

I cannot believe that they are trying to make the fbi look like they saved the day again. with all of these possible "terrorists" running around, i cant believe that the tsa hasnt "prevented" a terrorist attack, in order to justify them selves. maybe we will start to see a bunch of in-fighting among all these alphabet agencies , as to which one gets to be the current "hero" that saves the day.

reply to post by gladtobehere

You can choose any word you want,

Thank you, but I will stick with my original statement, and it's wording. You know, the one that you are so desperately trying to refute:

Furthermore, Shakespearean buffoons seems to be a fairly accurate discription of Richard Reid and Umar Abdulmutallab. I don't believe they were coerced by "Uncle Sam".

Currently you are still having trouble with the word coerced!

the underwear bomber was escorted onto the plane. He didnt even have a passport.

I know about that, but "escorted" and "coerced" have different meanings, and are NOT interchangeable.

And in this testimony, Kennedy confirms that the a branch of the US government asked that his visa NOT be denied. No dictionary needed, its all very straightforward for those who are able to embrace reality.

5:38 "We have a request from a law enforcement agency to NOT revoke the visa... one of the members said please do not revoke this visa...".

In no way can "the US government asked that his visa NOT be denied" be construed to mean that they "coerced" him. In my reality, you REALLY DO need to look up the definition of "coerced".

No cigar this time! Thanks for the "straw man"!

See ya,
Milt

reply to post by BenReclused

This isnt a straw man argument and it has nothing to do with coercion.

Fact is that many of these so called "terrorists" are being assisted by or working for the US government.

With regards to the FBI and their entrapment, its become so blatant that the Judge in the Newburgh Four case openly stated it.

Simple.

It could be worse. People could be blowing themselves up on city corners in our country for real, but they aren't.

Yes, the coercion/entrapment method as seen (possibly) here and back during the Chicago G8 summit has been the trend for the past few years. The fact is that we are mostly "terror" free as a country, especially when compared to some other nations abroad.

Especially, especially when compared to two certain nations we've occupied since Bush jr, but that is for another thread.

They have to justify their funding somehow.

The uncomfortable reality for those that want to keep that funding is that the US does have a domestic terrorism incident record covering the past decade in great detail, and only two groups dominate that list.

Animal Liberation Front
Earth Liberation Front

Ever heard of 'em? If not, that's the way they want it.

reply to post by gladtobehere

This isnt a straw man argument and it has nothing to do with coercion.

Sure it is! I claimed that "Richard Reid and Umar Abdulmutallab" weren't COERCED by "Uncle Sam", and you keep arguing that Umar Abdulmutallab was ASSISTED by "Uncle Sam".

If you decide to look up the definitions for "coerced" and "assisted", perhaps you should add "straw man argument" to the list.

Fact is that many of these so called "terrorists" are being assisted by or working for the US government.

No, that is not a fact! It is merely a claim. Even so, "being assisted by or working for" does not mean the same as "being COERCED by".

With regards to the FBI and their entrapment, its become so blatant that the Judge in the Newburgh Four case openly stated it.

Not quite! That's only your flawed interpretation. Judge McMahon was only referring to case she was presiding over. Here is her comment:

"I believe beyond a shadow of a doubt that there would have been no crime here except the government instigated it, planned it and brought it to fruition."

Source

Simple.

Yet you seem to have so much trouble understanding it...

See ya,
Milt