Yove got a couple of things wrong there. To start with, he had already indicated his intrest in suicide attacks. Why are you claiming that "his handlers would convince him to carry through with a (fake) attack." Are you trying to claim that he didn't mean what he had stated repeatedly about conducting an attack, a suicide attack at that, despite the fact that he attempted to go through with it? Do you have any basis for this?

A sting doesn't constitute "egging him on." He clearly wanted to conduct of his own free will, and you are in denial about that.

Shill? I have little regard for the opinions of nitwits. If you can't engage with facts you would do better to bow out gracefully and keep the insults to yourself.

Although it may be possible they are mentally ill, it is also possible that they are sane but have different values from you, that they are part of a different culture. Your' declaration "that's not open to debate" doesn't actually settle the matter no matter how much you wish it to. Do you have any familiarity with foreign or ancient cultures? I would have to assume not. Many cultures have had very different values from what you are accustomed to. That doesn't make them insane. Should we skip over the question of evil?

Do you remember what you just wrote? Allow me to quote you:

Amazingly you are both pot and kettle in this debate. Should I give you some time to argue it out with yourself to decide which way you want to roll?

I think there is remarkably little chance of the FBI pretending anything like that.

You're making an unsupported claim: "My posts propose that the FBI gets help for these people instead of propping them up and egging them on."

Where is the proof of that? Propping them up? Egging them on? This guy made his intent clear before the FBI ever came into contact with him. Why do you believe that wasn't his actual intent? Why do you believe that he didn't intent to kill people? What is your evidence that he is mentally ill instead of willing to engage in attacks that are consistent with his values and like those that occur around the world on a daily basis? Why do you think that America can't have ordinary ideologically inspired terrorists like other parts of the world?

The FBI cares about people's safety which is why they investigate people that announce their desire to commit violent jihad. That isn't "trying to draw attention to themselves," that is investigating the crimes people announce they intend to commit.

You apparently didn't comprehend the story. That guy was committed to make an attack and die in the process before he came into contact with the FBI. Where is your evidence that the FBI was "pressuring" and "reassuring him"?

What is your evidence that he had mental problems? He certainly had different values, but that isn't the same as being mentally ill. If anything your claim of "obvious mental problems" and that they "decided to make of show out of it for their own propaganda machine" indicates you probably don't understand what was happening. How is it jihadis conduct suicide bombing all over the world (without FBI contact) but you think they can't happen here?

No, they are trying to prove that guy culpable for his actions in a court of law. That has nothing to do with your fatuous claim which is clearly nonsense.

So once again some anonymous poster that is incompetent in dealing with a set of facts manages to get it wrong. This would-be jihadi made his intent clear, and tried to act on it. Did you not read the story?

FTA

If you want to try to "blame" that guy's attempted attack on the FBI then you don't understand what is going on. Could you spare us any more of those comments?

Remind me again who said this: "Your butthurt is showing."

I'd offer you a carton of milk and cookie but I'm all out. Check back with me next week.

Rs own the policies they enact or retain just as Ds own the policies they enact or retain. I assign responsibility on that basis. What gets amusing is the continual attempts at blame shifting by Ds for the policies they enact or retain. It is never the Ds fault that they have the policies they have, is it?. You only credit them with having a "rubber spine" instead of acknowledging their responsibility for their action or inaction. Do you truly believe that the administrations of FDR, Truman, JFK, LBJ, Carter, Clinton, and Obama weren't responsible for the policies they governed by, or that they were never first movers in government policy? That's not what the history books say, and neither does common sense.

Your embrace of silly notions diminishes you.

Then we agree that the facts are against you. Thanks

That says the "D"s owned their policy, and the "R"s owned theirs.

The difference is that I'm honest enough to say that.

So your view is that honesty is a form of self abuse? Figures.

One other thing ... would you like me to start digging up the "started by a D continued by an R" programs? I can take a wild guess about your reaction to that too.

Like I said, you break it you bought it. I can take a wild guess which part your find embarassing.

That may be true, but for some reason the moderation doesn't seem to be even handed on that point.

That appears to be false. If you read the article and the Wikipedia entry it seems pretty clear that those are different streams of government effort with diferent goals (intelligence vs law enforcement), scope, and methodologies. Then there is this gem from the artilce linked in the summary:

As far as presidents "whose hands are clean," I think that depends on some points of clarification. The Church Committee was addressing actual abusive conduct or misuse of law enforcement or intelligence. What is abusive in one context or set of facts may be perfectly legitimate in another. As a practical matter, for intelligence agencies or law enforcement to be useful they have to have the ability to do things that would be abusive if misused. One of the difficulties comes in drawing the lines. The US has at times gotten it wrong at times by drawing poorly chosen lines. Signs of 9/11 were missed because of that.

And lets not forget there is a flip side to this:

The Technology Secrets of Cocaine Inc.

That can't be true since everything has been Bush's fault well into the Obama administration. The Obama administration and its allies in the media keep reminding us of that.

If they approved, implemented, or reimplemented a policy they own it. Remember this part of the summary?

Do you have a reason why they aren't responsible?

Could you remind me again what party affiliation the two officials mentioned in the summary had?

There is an old rule in stores: you break it, you bought it.

In politics: you implment it, you own it.

The policy was owned by the Clinton administration when they approved it and either continued or reimplemented it.

I know people that have gone to court and beaten speeding tickets. In some cases it was due to the state's witness not appearing (the police officer), in others is was having better evidence.

What that tells me is that persuasive evidence has to be presented in court to obtain a conviction. It may not always work out that way, but on average that is the way to bet. And that's before you get to cases where there is an affirmative defense.

I don't think your facts showed up.