you do not fucking understand the concept of entrapment. stop talking about a concept you do not understand
Is your anger or stupidity so great that you have to keep insisting that I am claiming entrapment, when I am not? But even in your examples: you say: cop gives person to keys to car, says go steal it: entrapment. In this case: FBI gives bomb to suspect, says: go use it. How is this different? What was the intent of the recipient of the car keys in your example?
it's about *intent*. if you form the intent to do something malicious on your own, you are not entrapped. you are a criminal
So let's talk about intent. No-one knows what is truly in someone else's mind. We can only infer this from a person's words and actions. So, let's look at this person's words and actions and see if an alternative intent fits the known facts:
The accused person isn't the brightest person around. Imagine that he was worried about radical muslims and he formed the idea of catching some and turning them over to the FBI. So, what does he do? He goes on a fishing expedition for radicals by posting requests for a handler who will help him plant a bomb. He is contacted by someone who appears to be a radical muslim. He is careful not to build a bomb himself, but instead, he lets the supposed radical build a bomb and show him how to use it. His plan is to drive off with the bomb and then show it to the FBI as proof of the handler's intentions, however, his plan breaks down because he is arrested before he can hand it over to the FBI.
As you can see, the above narrative fits the known facts, yet it presents an intent which is 180 degrees from the intent that you presume.