Thank You, Gubbmint!

[dominicansoul]

by what authority are you demanding I have a little quiet reflection?

hahahaha

it just seems that you are a very nice guy, but you seem a little too obsessed by this whole "the man is out to get us" anarchy stuff...

again, i think you are reading way too much into this article...the FBI was doing their job stopping a nut job from exploding a lot of innocent civilians...regardless of whether or not you agree with the way they did it, I'm happy they did it...that would have been a horrific tragedy...don't you agree?

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='dominicansoul' timestamp='1290925008' post='2189634']
by what authority are you demanding I have a little quiet reflection?[/quote]
All authority comes from God. I won't hit you with a club and demand that you respect my authoritah (which would really just be aggression.)

[quote]it just seems that you are a very nice guy, but you seem a little too obsessed by this whole "the man is out to get us" anarchy stuff...[/quote]
Nobody's "out to get us." As I've said, they're far too disorganized for such things, and evil is far too banal. It's just that 200,000,000 people were slaughtered by the State in the 20th Century alone, and I'd like to think that this detail might be of concern to some people, and they might start to wonder "how does that happen? How is slaughter on such a grand scale formally and materially possible?" If I weren't a pessimist, I'd be [i]terribly[/i] disappointed with the popular lack of willingness to ponder that question.

[quote]again, i think you are reading way too much into this article...the FBI was doing their job stopping a nut job from exploding a lot of innocent civilians...regardless of whether or not you agree with the way they did it, I'm happy they did it...that would have been a horrific tragedy...don't you agree?
[/quote]

Yes. That van full of . . . wax and wires would have done tremendous damage, if the FBI hadn't intervened. I can see it clearly, now. Thank you, gubbmint! But wait, logic is trying to intervene! There is nothing that says this guy was actively seeking to blow anyone up on his own. In fact, in past entrapment activities of this kind, the FBI has had to work extra hard to cajole some would-be bombers into compliance, because of their initial and vehement rejection of violence against innocents. Thank goodness they persisted in leading other people into sins they were not originally going to commit. Thank goodness the end justifies the means.

The point is that they did not stop a nutjob from exploding a lot of innocents, because the only plot he was hatching was the fake plot offered to him on a silver platter by the Feds. Like this one: [url="http://wireupdate.com/local/chicago-man-arrested-for-attempting-to-bomb-crowded-street/"]http://wireupdate.co...crowded-street/[/url] What they do NOT show you in that story is the transcript from the recorded conversations with the "terrorist" supplying the "explosives," which reveal that the man did not want to harm any innocent people, and was adamant about it. They had to work on him, grinding him down, and get him to compromise to throw the "bomb" in a garbage can. Yes: they led him into sin. They committed the grave sin of scandal in order to accomplish their end.

I don't think you understand how the FBI finds these people. Let me explain what it is about, and how it works. First, they find a poor sap that holds unpopular ideas and make an example of him. Look up "Randy Weaver" on Google. This happened in 1993. The guy was a an alleged racist and white supremacist, but he did not advocate violence. Still, the Feds didn't like the fact that he refused to snitch on the racist group for them. By refusing, he did not respect their authoritah. So they got an acquaintance of Weaver's to convince him to saw a shotgun barrel to half an inch under the 18'' statutorially-approved minimum length. Weaver didn't want to do it at first, but eventually gave in. Is a half inch completely arbitrary? Yes. Yes it is. Anyway, the acquaintance, whom Weaver had considered a friend, later told reporters he helped entrap Weaver because he thought it would be "exciting." Well, it was "exciting," as you'll see.

After being issued a summons for the wrong date to which Weaver showed up, Weaver didn't show up for the summons with the correct court date, figuring they were jerking his chain. Imprudent, but it certainly did not merit what was to come. So, two U.S. Marshals in camouflage showed up on his property, performing surveillance. Weaver's adult friend, and Weaver's son were out hunting on their own property. The dog noticed the men and ran toward them. The "men" in camo, who did not identify themselves, shot the boy's dog. The boy reasonably shot at the unidentified "men" who killed his dog, killing one of them, then turned and ran. He was shot in the back and killed by the remaining U.S. Marshal as he ran home. Meanwhile, the surviving U.S. Marshal freaked out and squealed into his radio, "We're pinned down!" So they eventually brought in armored vehicles to this little map dot in Idaho called "Ruby Ridge." They redirected a Department of Defense satellite to provide overwatch on this guy's [i]cabin[/i] in the woods. (Overkill, don't you think?) They shot his buddy in the arm, they shot his wife in the head, killing her, while she was holding her baby, and the FBI used disgusting psychological torture, mocking Weaver over the negotiation phone, saying, "We're having blueberry pancakes for breakfast, Randy. What's your wife making for breakfast?" knowing full well that what was left of her head was splattered on the wall.

So, what do we take away from this? His dog was shot and killed, his son was shot in the back and murdered, his wife was shot in the head and murdered, and his buddy was shot in the shoulder. And why? Well, because he refused to be a State snitch for them. And, oh, that's right: he cut of [i]1/2'' of damnable tubular steel [/i]from a [i]damnable shotgun barrel[/i] [i]at the behest of a "friend" who thought it would be "exciting" to entrap him for the Feds for a [/i][i]"crime" that harmed absolutely no one. [/i]But thank goodness they stopped him committing further "crimes." I mean, he could have sawn off[i] three quarters[/i] of an inch of a shotgun barrel if he hadn't been stopped in time. Who knows, maybe even a[i] full inch[/i] of metal! Kudos to the State. Two people had to die, and the man's life had to be ruined over a half inch of tubular steel. Way to go. I feel so much safer now.

By the way: Weaver was acquitted of all charges. The person who murdered his family, of course, was weaselled out of the trial by his employer, despite the fact that he had been ordered to appear in court, and probably would have been convicted of at least manslaughter. This "man" later went on to shoot some non-aggressors at Waco, a year later.

That's how these entrapment operations work, Dominican. Maybe now you can understand a little more clearly why I make a mockery of these "operations." They should probably have exciting names like "Operation Molehill to Mountain" and "Operation Pester The Unwilling Subject Until He Complies" or "Operation Payback For Not Complying."

~Sternhauser

Edited November 28, 2010 by Sternhauser

[dominicansoul]

how do you know all this? are you an FBI agent who specifically worked on this particular job? Or, are you just presuming this is how it all came down by reading between the lines???

Is it safe to trust your view of things when you are an anarchist who probably dreams up a lot of conspiracies for every operation the FBI does?

I think I'll just go on trusting in God every day, and not think so much about what Ceasar is doing...the government is not the means of my salvation...God is...

...but bravo to you who feel like you have to dissect every operation of those in authority...i would be exhausted thinking about this stuff all the time...

[Ed Normile]

Let me add my two cents worth, well in this economy its really my ten dollars worth. One should always question authority, especially when we have leadership as we do now. I notice that abuses by state run orgs. like FBI, CIA, Police etc. tend to play out differently according to the agenda of those in power at the time. Those who are of a liberal agenda, socialist or progressive, seem to allow or look the other way when the abuses are directed towards their citizenry, while the more hawkish or conservative types allow these abuses aimed at the citizenry of other nations. Thats why you see incidents like Ruby Ridge and Waco under Presidents like Clinton, and yes things like Stern has brought up here under Presidents like Obama, and abuses like are revealed by liberals that take place upon the world stage happen under conservative Presidents, which is better abuse at home or abroad? That is expresslly why all authority should be questioned, are the decisions they make moral, are they moral in the sense they will further good or protect the citizenry as intended or are they designed to further an agenda or make a grab for power or commodities or to seize or limit rights afforded to free men by God, these are valid points and should be monitored religiously by all who consider themselves to be good citizens and or christians. Remember freedom is a gift from God, men historically limit this gift placing themselves and their views above and before God. left unchecked and unquestioned these abuses grow and flourish, inaction as in ignoring and not questioning these actions allow them to perpetuate and spread, remember Hitler did not win election by running on becoming a dictator and exterminating the jews, that all came incrementally as he was allowed to get away with more and more smaller abuses under the guise of the " good of the state "

ed

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='dominicansoul' timestamp='1290957591' post='2189658']
how do you know all this? are you an FBI agent who specifically worked on this particular job? Or, are you just presuming this is how it all came down by reading between the lines???

Is it safe to trust your view of things when you are an anarchist who probably dreams up a lot of conspiracies for every operation the FBI does?[/quote]

Everything I have said is a matter of public record, documented in court proceedings, accessible to anyone who wants to access them. Seeking them out does, of course, imply that one cares about such things in the first place.

[quote]I think I'll just go on trusting in God every day, and not think so much about what Ceasar is doing...the government is not the means of my salvation...God is...

...but bravo to you who feel like you have to dissect every operation of those in authority...i would be exhausted thinking about this stuff all the time...
[/quote]

My words here (and elsewhere) do not indicate a lack of trust in God. (I know, I know, you didn't say they did, but you weren't very clear about it, either.) On the contrary, they indicate a [i]sole[/i] trust in God and His Church. They indicate a respect for human dignity and for justice. I want people to understand how tax-funded personnel tend to operate, in order to non-violently remove support for their actions. I especially want to mitigate the phenomenon of people trusting a State agent's word before the word of a fellow citizen, simply because the other individual works for the State.

So go ahead and trust in God. I do, too. It's a good idea.

Not everyone is geared toward such a "ministry," as it were. I couldn't care less about the endangered Tiger Rainbow beetle in East Armpitia, or about spaying and neutering pets. Some people put a lot of emphasis on such things. My "thing?" I don't like people getting killed for no just reason. It torques me off down to the core of who I am. So much so that I'd like to convince people to stop supporting the framework that, by its nature, enables and encourages such actions, whether they recognize it or not. I am explaining, in different ways, so as to be understood by as many people as possible, the reasons [i]why[/i] we are told to "Put not your trust in princes, in the son of man, in whom there is no hope."

~Sternhauser

Edited November 28, 2010 by Sternhauser

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Ed Normile' timestamp='1290965021' post='2189675'] Remember freedom is a gift from God, men historically limit this gift placing themselves and their views above and before God. left unchecked and unquestioned these abuses grow and flourish, inaction as in ignoring and not questioning these actions allow them to perpetuate and spread, remember Hitler did not win election by running on becoming a dictator and exterminating the jews, that all came incrementally as he was allowed to get away with more and more smaller abuses under the guise of the " good of the state "

ed
[/quote]

Ed, allow me to play devil's advocate (Average Joe) here. (Devils often protect the belief in lies merely by distorting or obscuring the truths that are [i]actually[/i] being spoken, by making inaccurate allegations about the point the other person is making. You know, kind of like Pope Benedict and condoms.) Like Mark Twain said, "A lie can travel around the world before the truth has a chance to get its boots on."

[sarcasm]Are you saying that Barack Obama[i] is going to start killing Jews[/i]? Are you saying Obama is another Hitler? A mass-murderer to be? That his Brownshirts are going to be running through the streets breaking windows? Are you saying that everything ever done by anyone who works for the State is pure evil, because he works for the State? Yeah. That's what I [i]thought.[/i] You're just another conspiracy-theory nutjob.[/sarcasm]


~Sternhauser

Edited November 28, 2010 by Sternhauser

[Sternhauser]

Hmmm. Looks like Glenn Greenwald is asking the same questions.
[url="http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/11/28/fbi"]
FBI Successfully Thwarts Its Own Terrorist Plot[/url]

From the article: "As shocking and upsetting as this may be to some, FBI claims are sometimes one-sided, unreliable and even untrue, especially when such claims -- as here -- are uncorroborated and unexamined. That's why we have what we call "trials" before assuming guilt or even before believing that we know what happened: because the government doesn't always tell the complete truth, because they often skew reality, because things often look much different once the accused is permitted to present his own facts and subject the government's claims to scrutiny. The FBI affidavit -- as well as whatever its agents are whispering into the ears of reporters -- contains only those facts the FBI chose to include, but omits the ones it chose to exclude. And even the "facts" that are included are merely assertions at this point and thus may not be facts at all."

~Sternhauser

Edited November 28, 2010 by Sternhauser

[MithLuin]

Putting chlorine in bleach isn't a problem. It's the ammonia you don't want to mix with it.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='MithLuin' timestamp='1290977645' post='2189710']
Putting chlorine in bleach isn't a problem. It's the ammonia you don't want to mix with it.
[/quote]

D'oh. Looky there. I did say "chlorine and bleach." Thanks for the catch.

~Sternhauser

[MithLuin]

No problem. My degree in chemical engineering has to count for something! I use it so seldom.

I've read the [url=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40402994/ns/us_news-security/]MSNBC article[/url] on this incident, and I agree that, on his own, this 19 year old did not know how to rig a van with explosives. So...chances are, this plan would not have materialized. But. There seems to be little doubt that this guy [i]was[/i] interested in carrying out a local jihad, and, had he managed to hook up with someone more nefarious than an undercover FBI agent, something bad could very well have happened. He'd (again, apparently) already chosen the location for his 'boom'.

The kids who planned the shootings at Columbine had originally planned to hijack a plane and crash it into the World Trade Center in NYC (no, really!) Instead, they 'just' made a pipe bomb and left it in the school cafeteria. When it failed to detonate, they went in with their guns and started shooting people.

So, yes, the plan that was 'thwarted' is not the plan this guy would have carried out on his own. But he seemed pretty determined to do something, and by leading him down this path, they got what they needed to arrest him. It's not Ruby Ridge or Waco - no one got shot. I agree he's not a 'real' terrorist - he didn't have the connections or the know-how. He's not the bogeyman al-Qaeda. But...he did want to hurt people, so I'm not sure you can say that people were saved from a non-existent threat. The threat seems to be real enough, though you can't arrest people for thinking about doing something nefarious.

Edited November 28, 2010 by MithLuin

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='MithLuin' timestamp='1290981520' post='2189724']
No problem. My degree in chemical engineering has to count for something! I use it so seldom.

I've read the [url="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40402994/ns/us_news-security/"]MSNBC article[/url] on this incident, and I agree that, on his own, this 19 year old did not know how to rig a van with explosives. So...chances are, this plan would not have materialized. But. There seems to be little doubt that this guy [i]was[/i] interested in carrying out a local jihad, and, had he managed to hook up with someone more nefarious than an undercover FBI agent, something bad could very well have happened. He'd (again, apparently) already chosen the location for his 'boom'.

The kids who planned the shootings at Columbine had originally planned to hijack a plane and crash it into the World Trade Center in NYC (no, really!) Instead, they 'just' made a pipe bomb and left it in the school cafeteria. When it failed to detonate, they went in with their guns and started shooting people.

So, yes, the plan that was 'thwarted' is not the plan this guy would have carried out on his own. But he seemed pretty determined to do something, and by leading him down this path, they got what they needed to arrest him. It's not Ruby Ridge or Waco - no one got shot. I agree he's not a 'real' terrorist - he didn't have the connections or the know-how. He's not the bogeyman al-Qaeda. But...he did want to hurt people, so I'm not sure you can say that people were saved from a non-existent threat. The threat seems to be real enough, though you can't arrest people for thinking about doing something nefarious.
[/quote]

Yes. He should know that American 19-year olds have socially-acceptable outlets for their desire to kill people with large weapons.

~Sternhauser

[MithLuin]

I don't think he was interested in joining the US military....if that is what you are referring to.

[dominicansoul]

[quote name='Sternhauser' timestamp='1290983313' post='2189729']
Yes. He should know that American 19-year olds have socially-acceptable outlets for their desire to kill people with large weapons.

~Sternhauser
[/quote]

yeah, I'm pretty sure Dorothy Day didn't think this way...if so, then, she'll never be declared a saint for wrongly judging people's hearts...

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='dominicansoul' timestamp='1290995523' post='2189768']
yeah, I'm pretty sure Dorothy Day didn't think this way...if so, then, she'll never be declared a saint for wrongly judging people's hearts...
[/quote]

Not judging anyone's heart, judgmental one. Go take a spin through the YouTube comments sometime. Many went based on some vague idea of "patriotism." Many others went because their lives were going nowhere, and joining the military gives anyone instant "near-hero" or full "hero" status in the eyes of the average American. 'Cause they're "Going overseas serving the country, protecting your freedoms." Which would be a nice emotional line to believe, except that it's just a line.

But when acquaintances personally, seriously and eagerly tell me they are going to join the military in order to separate bodies from souls, and "kill hadjis" and "kill ragheads," there's no heart-reading necessary. You just have to listen to what the little psychopaths are saying.

In this video, Iraq/Afghanistan veterans explain why they joined. And why they thought they were there. The reasons are not impressive, and most of them admit as much.
"The Ground Truth."
[media]http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5188599301918606321#[/media]

Dominican, I would love to see a poll about how many people in the military think that waterboarding is moral. Half of Americans think it is moral. How many soldiers do you think it is moral? [url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LPubUCJv58&feature=related"]Waterboarding. Watch it. It's tame compared to real applications. [/url]

~Sternhauser

Edited November 29, 2010 by Sternhauser

[dominicansoul]

here's one guy who never killed anyone while in the military...

http://www.vincentcapodanno.org/


Stern, you make a lot of generalizations about whole groups of people...not every single person who serves in the military is filled with bloodlust...
not every single person who works for the government is out to control and take away people's rights, either...

....and I wouldn't use yahoo commentaries as a good source for what you consider factual information...