4 ms·

That's a myth. The FBI radicalizes mentally unstable people (which frankly most people are to some extent) (where radicalize means basically getting to say the

by tamana 11y ago

That's a myth. The FBI radicalizes mentally unstable people (which frankly most people are to some extent) (where radicalize means basically getting to say the kind of shit people spam Facebook and reddit with all the time) and then arrest them. The reality is vanishingly few people are both radical and have any notion of initiative and means to perpetrate an attack.

marcoperaza 11y ago
They target people who have said things online or in person, or have met with certain people, indicating their support for terrorism. Voicing support for terrorism is not illegal in this country, so you're totally wrong that that's what they're arresting people for. They then run the sting to see if the person is willing to carry out an attack, and takes concrete action toward that, like acquiring "explosives" or guns. At that point, they're guilty of a conspiracy. How would a real terrorist find recruits inside a Western country? They'd find people that posted something indicating their support, and then they'd try to talk them and coach them into carrying out attack.
- greggman 11y ago
  People do all kinds of things under peer pressure and coercion they wouldn't do otherwise There's plenty of stories of tptb totally overstepping the bounds of peer pressure and coercion. I'd even argue that most people will choose to follow the crowd to fit in, not rock the boat, rather than go against their peers.
  - marcoperaza 11y ago
    >People do all kinds of things under peer pressure and coercion they wouldn't do otherwise So should we wait for the real terrorists to apply this "peer pressure and coercion" instead? We're talking about mass murder here, not pushing a little dope. Under what possible logic is an FBI agent able to convince someone to kill people, but a real terrorist isn't?
    - nitrogen 11y ago
      The only conclusion we can draw is that there are more FBI agents in a given part of the US than real terrorist recruiters. FBI agents also have training in persuasion (watch a segment from Last Week Tonight about interrogation to see an example). As other comments have suggested, there are plenty of "ordinary" people who could easily be radicalized if 5/6 of their friends were actually agents telling them they had to do something for God and Country. We don't round them up in stings because they function just fine in society with nobody trying to push them over the edge. What the FBI is doing is entrapment. Have any of the attacks in the US since 9/11 been caused by people recruited on the ground in the manner used by the FBI stings? No, they come from people acting spontaneously. The challenge isn't recruiters on the ground, it's extremist ideology. And FBI entrapment fuels that ideology, rather than tempering it.
      - marcoperaza 11y ago
        >Have any of the attacks in the US since 9/11 been caused by people recruited on the ground in the manner used by the FBI stings? There have been way more attacks in Europe, and people have been recruited with those tactics. Coincidentally, these kinds of sting operations aren't very common in Europe, and are even banned in many countries. If we want to win this battle, there's no room for bleeding-hearts. We must be methodical, cunning, and ruthless against those who would kill us. This same bleeding-heart attitude is what leads to people serving a measly four years in prison for shooting at police officers with an AK-47 while trying to get away after committing a bank robbery. No one should be surprised that this same person was one of the Brussels bombers. >The older brother, Ibrahim el-Bakraoui, robbed a Western Union branch in Brussels in 2010, spraying gunfire at police from a Kalashnikov as he attempted to flee, according to his lawyer at the time and government officials. Mr. Bakraoui was caught and sentenced to 10 years in prison. In 2014, he was released with an obligation to contact his parole officer once a month. (http://www.wsj.com/articles/belgium-rues-missed-terror-signs-1458947371 http://www.wsj.com/articles/belgium-rues-missed-terror-signs...)
        nitrogen 11y ago
        In discussions like this I always think of an episode of Star Trek TNG, "Hero Worship", that is a metaphor for human antagonism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hero_Worship_%28Star_Trek:_The_Next_Generation%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hero_Worship_%28Star_Trek:_The... > Then, a shock wave hits the Enterprise and Timothy says that his ship was also hit by a shock wave. Picard tells Worf to raise shields but a new shock wave is even stronger than the first one. More power is diverted to the shields and another wave hits and is even stronger. Picard and Geordi discuss putting the energy of the warp engine to the shields. Timothy states that is what they said on his ship. > Data suddenly asks Picard to lower shields and Worf does so. The next shock wave is harmless and the Enterprise is safe. Data realized that giving energy to the shields caused even heavier shock waves (the more power the ship generated, the heavier the shock), and these were ultimately responsible for the destruction of Timothy's ship. The lesson learned is that a strong and more vicious front may be met by an even stronger response. Obviously analogies and metaphors are only illustrations, not arguments, but judging from what I know of human nature amidst intense opposition, I don't think that a "ruthless" approach will do anything but breed more ruthlessness.

by tamana 11y ago

marcoperaza 11y ago

They target people who have said things online or in person, or have met with certain people, indicating their support for terrorism. Voicing support for terrorism is not illegal in this country, so you're totally wrong that that's what they're arresting people for. They then run the sting to see if the person is willing to carry out an attack, and takes concrete action toward that, like acquiring "explosives" or guns. At that point, they're guilty of a conspiracy. How would a real terrorist find recruits inside a Western country? They'd find people that posted something indicating their support, and then they'd try to talk them and coach them into carrying out attack.

greggman 11y ago
People do all kinds of things under peer pressure and coercion they wouldn't do otherwise There's plenty of stories of tptb totally overstepping the bounds of peer pressure and coercion. I'd even argue that most people will choose to follow the crowd to fit in, not rock the boat, rather than go against their peers.
- marcoperaza 11y ago
  >People do all kinds of things under peer pressure and coercion they wouldn't do otherwise So should we wait for the real terrorists to apply this "peer pressure and coercion" instead? We're talking about mass murder here, not pushing a little dope. Under what possible logic is an FBI agent able to convince someone to kill people, but a real terrorist isn't?
  - nitrogen 11y ago
    The only conclusion we can draw is that there are more FBI agents in a given part of the US than real terrorist recruiters. FBI agents also have training in persuasion (watch a segment from Last Week Tonight about interrogation to see an example). As other comments have suggested, there are plenty of "ordinary" people who could easily be radicalized if 5/6 of their friends were actually agents telling them they had to do something for God and Country. We don't round them up in stings because they function just fine in society with nobody trying to push them over the edge. What the FBI is doing is entrapment. Have any of the attacks in the US since 9/11 been caused by people recruited on the ground in the manner used by the FBI stings? No, they come from people acting spontaneously. The challenge isn't recruiters on the ground, it's extremist ideology. And FBI entrapment fuels that ideology, rather than tempering it.
    - marcoperaza 11y ago
      >Have any of the attacks in the US since 9/11 been caused by people recruited on the ground in the manner used by the FBI stings? There have been way more attacks in Europe, and people have been recruited with those tactics. Coincidentally, these kinds of sting operations aren't very common in Europe, and are even banned in many countries. If we want to win this battle, there's no room for bleeding-hearts. We must be methodical, cunning, and ruthless against those who would kill us. This same bleeding-heart attitude is what leads to people serving a measly four years in prison for shooting at police officers with an AK-47 while trying to get away after committing a bank robbery. No one should be surprised that this same person was one of the Brussels bombers. >The older brother, Ibrahim el-Bakraoui, robbed a Western Union branch in Brussels in 2010, spraying gunfire at police from a Kalashnikov as he attempted to flee, according to his lawyer at the time and government officials. Mr. Bakraoui was caught and sentenced to 10 years in prison. In 2014, he was released with an obligation to contact his parole officer once a month. (http://www.wsj.com/articles/belgium-rues-missed-terror-signs-1458947371 http://www.wsj.com/articles/belgium-rues-missed-terror-signs...)
      - nitrogen 11y ago
        In discussions like this I always think of an episode of Star Trek TNG, "Hero Worship", that is a metaphor for human antagonism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hero_Worship_%28Star_Trek:_The_Next_Generation%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hero_Worship_%28Star_Trek:_The... > Then, a shock wave hits the Enterprise and Timothy says that his ship was also hit by a shock wave. Picard tells Worf to raise shields but a new shock wave is even stronger than the first one. More power is diverted to the shields and another wave hits and is even stronger. Picard and Geordi discuss putting the energy of the warp engine to the shields. Timothy states that is what they said on his ship. > Data suddenly asks Picard to lower shields and Worf does so. The next shock wave is harmless and the Enterprise is safe. Data realized that giving energy to the shields caused even heavier shock waves (the more power the ship generated, the heavier the shock), and these were ultimately responsible for the destruction of Timothy's ship. The lesson learned is that a strong and more vicious front may be met by an even stronger response. Obviously analogies and metaphors are only illustrations, not arguments, but judging from what I know of human nature amidst intense opposition, I don't think that a "ruthless" approach will do anything but breed more ruthlessness.