You are oversimplifying the argument to support your narrative cause. Your comparison is what is nonsense and if you did in fact read the article you are ignoring what it said. This FBI idiocy is creating terrorists by providing already morally compromised, mentally unsound or emotionally compromised people with terrorist intellectual propaganda, financial support, and material equipment support. They aren't just selling them fake bombs, they are actively encouraging the behavior to instigate the suspects to commit the acts. Terrorism happens for a reason, its not supernatural, its not simple hatred and irrational anger that occurs, it has a cause, it is developed from something, and in this example, the terrorism is encouraged and promoted by government law enforcement. It seems silly to even have to argue this as a legitimate use of justice, we are not in the 1950s.
Entrapment as a legal definition is different from entrapment as a word definition, since the word's definition alone is not a valid legal defense these days according to the courts. However, that doesn't make it an automatic ethical practice on the part of law enforcement. A judge explicitly stated the obvious point I'm trying to make, from a case referenced in the article:
“Only the government could have made a ‘terrorist’ out of Mr. Cromitie, whose buffoonery is positively Shakespearean in its scope,” said Judge Colleen McMahon, sentencing him to 25 years. She branded it a “fantasy terror operation” but called his attempt “beyond despicable” and rejected his claim of entrapment.