[Logic]

Article

Can this really be legal? Isn't this entrapment? Yes, the men were fools to take part in it but can it really be legal to do what the FBI did here?

And what about the weapons of mass destruction? Is a bazooka all of a sudden a WMD?

[dreilly1]

There are strict regulations that are followed by investigators that keep a sting operation from becoming entrapment. These guys' lawyers will know these regulations, too, and will make sure that any deviation is noted when/if this goes to trial.

Everything I know about Law Enforcement I've learned from Law & Order, though, so I'll leave it to someone who knows what he's talking about to expound on that point...

[Millennium]

Sting operations have always been something of a legal grey area. There are plenty of people who would like to see them banned as entrapment, but on the other hand it is an important evidence-gathering tool. Myself, I don't know what to think of them in principle, though as long as they are very heavily regulated (and the appropriate safeguards against abuse are kept in place).

[dcolton]

I think it is legal because the informant is not an officer. If he were, then it would be entrapment.

But as a side note, I think it is shady...but it happens all of the time.

[PacHead]

All mosques should be investigated and kept under surveillance. It is a fact that islamic terrorists use mainstream places such as mosques, charities etc. as fronts for their murderours schemes. I don't care if anybody disagrees with me, because I am in the right, and I am pretty sure the FBI, homeland security has similiar thoughts, as they are surely privy to more info than you or I might know about.

Besides the terror imam in Albany, some dude was arrested in Chicago also yesterday in some scheme to buy explosives and give it to islamic terrorists such as hamas, so they could blow up buildings.

[mo]

Originally posted by PacHead:
... I don't care if anybody disagrees with me, because I am in the right. ...

So, the purpose of posting your thoughts in a public forum would be ... what? Maybe this is some kind of substitute for a personal diary?

[dcolton]

I stand corrected...this is not shady as these scum were linked to Iraq!

ALBANY, N.Y. — Information found in Iraq led federal investigators to become suspicious of an Albany, N.Y., mosque leader, FOX News has learned.

Last summer, U.S. troops discovered Yassin Muhhiddin Aref's (search) name, telephone number and address in a book left behind in a vacated terrorist training camp, a U.S. official told FOX News. The book also revealed that Ansar al-Islam, the group running the camp, had given Aref a title: "the commander."

Aref, 34, is the Imam of the Masjid As-Salam mosque in Albany, N.Y. He and one other mosque leader were arrested Thursday and charged with helping an undercover informant posing as a weapons dealer who was plotting to buy a shoulder-launched missile that would be used to kill the Pakistani ambassador in New York City.

Aref and Mohammed Mosharref Hossain (search), the 49-year-old founder of the mosque and owner of the local Little Italy Pizzeria, were allegedly collaborating with someone who was not a terrorist but an informant participating in a sting operation; no missile ever was exchanged

[PacHead]

Originally posted by mo:
So, the purpose of posting your thoughts in a public forum would be ... what? Maybe this is some kind of substitute for a personal diary?

Stating my 2 cents, that's all.

I'm tired of hearing people say that the war on terrorism has nothing to do with islamic terrorists, because that is simply not true. That is exactly who the enemy is, you know, the ones who have declared war upon us.

[dreilly1]

Originally posted by PacHead:
It is a fact that islamic terrorists use mainstream places such as mosques, charities etc. as fronts for their murderours schemes.

Originally posted by PacHead:
All mosques should be investigated and kept under surveillance.

(yes, I know I'm quoting him out of order, it shouldn't matter...)

Even if you believe the "fact" you have stated, it's a long jump from "some mosques are fronts for terrorist activities" to "all mosques should be investigated"...

[PacHead]

Originally posted by dreilly1:
(yes, I know I'm quoting him out of order, it shouldn't matter...)

Even if you believe the "fact" you have stated, it's a long jump from "some mosques are fronts for terrorist activities" to "all mosques should be investigated"...

Why shouldn't they ? If they're looking for terrorists, the logical method would be to look in the places where one is most likely to find them. We're on a manhunt for these terrorist killers and enemy infiltrators, so it makes sense to look in the logical places.

Also, the whole non-profiling thing on airplanes is crap. Asking some 70 year old grandmother to remove their shoes aint helping out one bit. The idea is just braindead.

[dcolton]

Funniest thing...

Islam is a peaceful religion...so everyone claims. If that is the case, why is it that Mosques are the headquarters and sanctuary for 'skewed' and 'killer' muslims?

[MacGorilla]

Originally posted by dcolton:
Funniest thing...

Islam is a peaceful religion...so everyone claims. If that is the case, why is it that Mosques are the headquarters and sanctuary for 'skewed' and 'killer' muslims?

For the same reason why churches are headquarters for extreme right wingers who think murdering an abortion providing doctor is justifiable homicide.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by MacGorilla:
For the same reason why churches are headquarters for extreme right wingers who think murdering an abortion providing doctor is justifiable homicide.

But they are not. You people repeatedly make this claim in your effort to defend terrorists and demonize Christians. Yet, you are hard pressed to show a link from a respectable news source proving your allegations. Not to mentiont...when was the last clinic bombing? Seems to me as if it were a short lived phenomenom.

[dreilly1]

Originally posted by PacHead:
Why shouldn't they ? If they're looking for terrorists, the logical method would be to look in the places where one is most likely to find them. We're on a manhunt for these terrorist killers and enemy infiltrators, so it makes sense to look in the logical places.

Also, the whole non-profiling thing on airplanes is crap. Asking some 70 year old grandmother to remove their shoes aint helping out one bit. The idea is just braindead.

OK, I see what you mean. Here's another argument which you should agree with, then:


You know, if we're looking for criminals who use guns, the logical method would be to look in the places where one is most likely to find them. Every place where the gun owners congregate (gun shops, shooting ranges, etc.) should be investigated. We're on a manhunt for these criminals, after all, so it makes sense to look in the logical places...

[dcolton]

Originally posted by dreilly1:
OK, I see what you mean. Here's another argument which you should agree with, then:


You know, if we're looking for criminals who use guns, the logical method would be to look in the places where one is most likely to find them. Every place where the gun owners congregate (gun shops, shooting ranges, etc.) should be investigated. We're on a manhunt for these criminals, after all, so it makes sense to look in the logical places...

You don't think places like these are reguarly monitored?

[PacHead]

Originally posted by dreilly1:
OK, I see what you mean. Here's another argument which you should agree with, then:


You know, if we're looking for criminals who use guns, the logical method would be to look in the places where one is most likely to find them. Every place where the gun owners congregate (gun shops, shooting ranges, etc.) should be investigated. We're on a manhunt for these criminals, after all, so it makes sense to look in the logical places...

Yes, I would agree with that, if the authorities were searching for a criminal who was known to have strong ties to the gun community (gun shops, shooting ranges, gun conventions). It would make perfect sense to look into those locations/events. Detective work 101 here.

I would believe however that the majority of criminals using guns acquire them illegaly on the street etc., but if you have data that shows that many criminals congregate shooting ranges and there is some conspiracy taking place, then sure, I'll agree with your point.

[dreilly1]

Originally posted by PacHead:
Yes, I would agree with that, if the authorities were searching for a criminal who was known to have strong ties to the gun community (gun shops, shooting ranges, gun conventions). It would make perfect sense to look into those locations/events. Detective work 101 here.

I would believe however that the majority of criminals using guns acquire them illegaly on the street etc., but if you have data that shows that many criminals congregate shooting ranges and there is some conspiracy taking place, then sure, I'll agree with your point.

No, you don't get it. We're not searching for a specific criminal, we're in a War On Criminals (with guns). And since I say so, we need to keep all those gun shops under surveillance, all the time.

It's better that we treat an entire class of people like criminals than have to do the hard work of investigating only the guilty, and leaving the innocent alone. Some big-wig said something like that, right?

edit: I edited that before PacHead wrote his response...

[PacHead]

Originally posted by dreilly1:
No, you don't get it. We're not searching for a specific criminal, we're in a War On Criminals (with guns). And since I say so, we need to keep all those gun shops under surveillance, all the time.

It's better that we treat an entire class of people like criminals than let one guilty man go uninvestigated. Some big-wig said something like that, right?

Keep the gun shops under surveilance if you like, I don't mind.

Personally, I believe our resources are better used elsewhere, as in the war against islamic terrorists, which is a real war afterall.

And this isn't about letting one guilty man go uninvestigated, hordes have been caught already, all over the world. We know what 19 of 'em can do.

And as for being treated like criminals, I get searched and pulled to the side everytime I fly, I don't mind, and neither should anybody else. Anybody who minds, I will view with suspicion.

[dreilly1]

Originally posted by PacHead:
And as for being treated like criminals, I get searched and pulled to the side everytime I fly, I don't mind, and neither should anybody else. Anybody who minds, I will view with suspicion.

You live in this country, and yet you have no clue what people were fighting against when they founded it, do you?

The fourth amendment is just as important as the others, and there's a reason why they bothered to include it. No one should consider simply being part of a mosque, getting on an airplane, or owning a gun as worthy of investigation.

[PacHead]

Originally posted by dreilly1:
You live in this country, and yet you have no clue what people were fighting against when they founded it, do you?

The fourth amendment is just as important as the others, and there's a reason why they bothered to include it. No one should consider simply being part of a mosque, getting on an airplane, or owning a gun as worthy of investigation.

When the country was founded men still wore silly wigs, and there were no airplanes in existance either. Are you seriously saying that people getting on planes should not be looked into, or we should not have tight security on planes & airports ?

I am willing to put up with certain inconveniences in times of war, until the enemy is all dead/locked up and they have capitulated.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by PacHead:
When the country was founded men still wore silly wigs, and there were no airplanes in existance either. Are you seriously saying that people getting on planes should not be looked into, or we should not have tight security on planes & airports ?

People getting on planes should not be looked into. People suspected of having committed a crime should be looked into. No one else. That's what ethical law enforcement does.

I am willing to put up with certain inconveniences in times of war, until the enemy is all dead/locked up and they have capitulated.

I am willing to put up with inconveniences. I am not willing to give up my rights.

[dreilly1]

Originally posted by PacHead:
I am willing to put up with certain inconveniences in times of war, until the enemy is all dead/locked up and they have capitulated.

I think the dispute here is what "put up with certain inconveniences" means. Apparently, you think it means putting all mosques under permanent investigation. I'm sure that's a big sacrifice for you personally...

[Logic]

Originally posted by dcolton:
I stand corrected...this is not shady as these scum were linked to Iraq!

Ignoring the fact that most of you seem to have forgotten the "Innocent until proven guilty" thing most democracies are known for, shouldn't he just have been detained for that apparent link to Iraq? Wouldn't that have been enough? Why this whole trap?


Oh, and since when did a bazooka become a WMD?

[Logic]

Originally posted by dcolton:
Funniest thing...

Islam is a peaceful religion...so everyone claims. If that is the case, why is it that Mosques are the headquarters and sanctuary for 'skewed' and 'killer' muslims?

Because 99% of the Muslims in that Mosque don't know that there are suspected terrorists there perhaps?

Or are you implying all Muslims are terrorists or support terrorism?

[dcolton]

I can mildly agree with Pachead. I think that he is right in his assertion that we are in a time of war and sometimes measures that we don't agree with have to be put in place to protect American interests.

I suppose the question I have for all of those who don't believe stricter measures should be taken when we face a danger is a sfollows:

Do you believe we are in a time of war?

[dcolton]

Originally posted by Logic:
Ignoring the fact that most of you seem to have forgotten the "Innocent until proven guilty" thing most democracies are known for, shouldn't he just have been detained for that apparent link to Iraq? Wouldn't that have been enough? Why this whole trap?


Oh, and since when did a bazooka become a WMD?

Why the trap? If we just detained these terrorist scum, everyone would bitch about us detaining them without cause...as seen many times in the Coalition's effort to detain those who bear arms against coalition soldiers.

As for innocent until proven guilty...these men will see their day in court. But...this is not to mention the fact that we are in a time of war and those who desire to kill American soldiers will be detained and dealt with accordingly.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by Logic:
Because 99% of the Muslims in that Mosque don't know that there are suspected terrorists there perhaps?

Got anything to back that up?

[PacHead]

Originally posted by dreilly1:
Apparently, you think it means putting all mosques under permanent investigation.

Oh, not at all. If I were appointed the Terrorism Czar, or whatever it's called, then here's my simple plan.

Check out the known extremist ones first -

If one is given a clean bill of health, then move on to next one. I never implied permanent investigation. And regardless or not people if agree with this, I hope this is exactly what is being done. It is 100% common sense.

[dreilly1]

Originally posted by PacHead:
Oh, not at all. If I were appointed the Terrorism Czar, or whatever it's called, then here's my simple plan.

Check out the known extremist ones first -

If one is given a clean bill of health, then move on to next one. I never implied permanent investigation. And regardless or not people if agree with this, I hope this is exactly what is being done. It is 100% common sense.

Originally posted earlier by PacHead:
All mosques should be investigated and kept under surveillance. It is a fact that islamic terrorists use mainstream places such as mosques, charities etc. as fronts for their murderours schemes. I don't care if anybody disagrees with me, because I am in the right, and I am pretty sure the FBI, homeland security has similiar thoughts, as they are surely privy to more info than you or I might know about.

I hope PacHead the Terrorism Czar knows how to tell the good Muslims from the bad ones.

[PacHead]

Originally posted by dreilly1:
I hope PacHead the Terrorism Czar knows how to tell the good Muslims from the bad ones.

The good ones don't want to blow us up.

[dreilly1]

Originally posted by Logic:
Oh, and since when did a bazooka become a WMD?

Wow, I missed that on the first read of the article. I hope they have something to back up that charge with.

Some write-ups of this described the weapon in question as a "shoulder-fired missle", which might be capable of downing an airplane. But they all mention that the weapon (whatever it was) was meant to be used to assasinate some Pakistani big-wig in NYC. While that might be legitimately characterized as terrorism, it's hardly mass destruction, is it?

[dcolton]

Originally posted by PacHead:
The good ones don't want to blow us up.

Your hired!

[Logic]

Originally posted by dcolton:
Why the trap? If we just detained these terrorist scum, everyone would bitch about us detaining them without cause...as seen many times in the Coalition's effort to detain those who bear arms against coalition soldiers.

You have probably cause to detain and question him because of the things stated in the article you posted above. No need to trap him into looking even more guilty.

As for innocent until proven guilty...these men will see their day in court. But...this is not to mention the fact that we are in a time of war and those who desire to kill American soldiers will be detained and dealt with accordingly.

I got no problem with that.

[Logic]

Originally posted by dcolton:
Got anything to back that up?

What would your reason for people not reporting the terrorists be?

[Logic]

Originally posted by PacHead:
The good ones don't want to blow us up.

And the bad ones will tell you that they want to blow you up?

[dcolton]

Originally posted by Logic:
What would your reason for people not reporting the terrorists be?

I don't know. Maybe something in the Koran. Maybe fear, as we have seen the iron fists Muslims like to rule with. Maybe conspiracy. Maybe ignorance. Who knows. But nice try in avoiding my question.

[Logic]

Originally posted by dreilly1:
Wow, I missed that on the first read of the article. I hope they have something to back up that charge with.

Some write-ups of this described the weapon in question as a "shoulder-fired missle", which might be capable of downing an airplane. But they all mention that the weapon (whatever it was) was meant to be used to assasinate some Pakistani big-wig in NYC. While that might be legitimately characterized as terrorism, it's hardly mass destruction, is it?

It's also interesting to see the more rabid rightwingers have completely ignored that part of the charge. I guess they don't care what they are charged with since they are "evil Muslims"

But lets say that they believe that the bazooka could take down a plane and therefore should be considered a WMD, then why have they not charged people for the same if they own box-cutters?

[Logic]

Originally posted by dcolton:
I don't know. Maybe something in the Koran. Maybe fear, as we have seen the iron fists Muslims like to rule with. Maybe conspiracy. Maybe ignorance. Who knows. But nice try in avoiding my question.

I wasn't avoiding your question. I already answered it.

Because 99% of the Muslims in that Mosque don't know that there are suspected terrorists there perhaps?

I don't know what schools in the US teach but from where I'm from(both Sweden and Iceland) a question mark(looks like this -> ?) means that it is a question and not a statement. And it is kind of difficult to back a question up.

[Stradlater]

Didn't you hear? The FBI can do whatever it wants to do.

[dreilly1]

Originally posted by Logic:
But lets say that they believe that the bazooka could take down a plane and therefore should be considered a WMD, then why have they not charged people for the same if they own box-cutters?

There are differences. Mainly, a box-cutter will just help you take over an airplane, it wouldn't cause its destruction like a direct hit from a missle would.

[mo]

Originally posted by dcolton:


Do you believe we are in a time of war?

Do you believe in the constitution? Or is that just for "men in silly wigs"?

Quote from man in silly wig:

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin

[dcolton]

Originally posted by Logic:
It's also interesting to see the more rabid rightwingers have completely ignored that part of the charge. I guess they don't care what they are charged with since they are "evil Muslims"

But lets say that they believe that the bazooka could take down a plane and therefore should be considered a WMD, then why have they not charged people for the same if they own box-cutters?

If the intent is to attack on American soil...whther it is a bullet, knife, box cutter or tainted semen...it is a weapon that these muslim scum wanted to use to kill innocent people or in this case, an Ally of the US.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by mo:
Do you believe in the constitution? Or is that just for "men in silly wigs"?

Very much so...and the constitution has NOT been violated. A nation MUST be able to defend herself from enemies abroad and within. If it were left up to people like you, we would probably be speaking japanese as we heiled Hitler.

Quote from man in silly wig:

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin

Essential is the key. Nonetheless, liberty has not been abridged.

Where is that quote from by the way? What is the context?

[Logic]

Originally posted by dcolton:
If the intent is to attack on American soil...whther it is a bullet, knife, box cutter or tainted semen...it is a weapon that these muslim scum wanted to use to kill innocent people or in this case, an Ally of the US.

And therefore it is a WMD?

[dcolton]

Originally posted by Logic:
And therefore it is a WMD?

I know this may shock your Muslim way of thinking...but a killer is a killer. Whether your brethern wanted to kill one person or a million people...they are killer muslims. Doesn't matter if it is a WMD or not. Don't you get it...we don't tolerate killer muslims killing. We can give a sh!t about 'root causes', Jihads, and interpretations of the Koran. Why are you trying to minimize a terrorist effort?

[dreilly1]

tainted semen?
Please explain, dcolton. I promise I'll take you off 'ignore' long enough to read it....

[Logic]

Originally posted by dcolton:
I know this may shock your Muslim way of thinking...but a killer is a killer. Whether your brethern wanted to kill one person or a million people...they are killer muslims. Doesn't matter if it is a WMD or not. Don't you get it...we don't tolerate killer muslims killing. We can give a sh!t about 'root causes', Jihads, and interpretations of the Koran. Why are you trying to minimize a terrorist effort?

I'm not trying to minimise anything. If you don't like killers then why don't you charge all would be murderers and convicted murderers with that charge about WMD's?


Oh, and there is a Muslim in your closet. Watch out, he might try to kill you.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by dreilly1:
tainted semen?
Please explain, dcolton. I promise I'll take you off 'ignore' long enough to read it....

Just keep me on ignore.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by Logic:
Oh, and there is a Muslim in your closet. Watch out, he might try to kill you.

Already took him out. Dipped a bullet in bacon fat and shot him in the arm (for torture sake). Then I made him stand naked on one foot while I played Battle Hymnn of the Republic. I tied him up, left for work...leaving a bottle of water just out of reach. When I get home, I am going to sick my basset hound on him.

Still trying to decide if I should remove his head...maybe I will demand that all terrorist go to canada by 1 pm tomorrow or I will behead him and feed his body to the pigs.

[dreilly1]

Originally posted by dcolton:
Just keep me on ignore.

Done!