Quote:

---

But the bomb was a fake and had been provided to Mohamud as part of a long-term sting by undercover FBI agents.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

Further investigation reveals the guy is dumber than a brick, and was lead by the hand by FBI "handlers" step by step all the way - he couldn't even FIND the goddamn target zone without one in the van with him to give directions... so from day one this whole "plot" was handed to him piece by piece by the feds.

Oh yes, and where oh where did he get the "bomb" ?

Why, the same place Ramzi Youssef did!

Quote:

---

But the bomb was a fake and had been provided to Mohamud as part of a long-term sting by undercover FBI agents.

---

Of course, they gave Youssef a REAL bomb, and soon enough, as Judges get sick of playing along and charging these morons for essentially being dupes...

In order to keep up the booga-booga and make the charges stick, the FBI might once again resort to handing off real bombs, which worked out SO well in 1993, did it not ?

Or worse, get *played* by a real terrorist who plays dumb, milks them for equipment and intel, then kills the FBI infiltrator and makes a real strike with resources our so-called protectors provided him.

The gravest threat to our national security...
Is our National Security.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

---

Quote:

---

Some residents of this famously liberal city are unnerved, not only by a plot to bomb an annual Christmas tree-lighting ceremony last week but also by the police tactics in the case.

They questioned whether federal agents crossed the line by training 19-year-old Somali-American Mohamed O. Mohamud to blow up a bomb, giving him $3,000 cash to rent an apartment and providing him with a fake bomb.

The FBI affidavit “was a picture painted to make the suspect sound like a dangerous terrorist,” said Portland photographer Rich Burroughs. “I don’t think it’s clear at all that this person would have ever had access to even a fake bomb if not for the FBI.”

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/world/50771809-68/portland-fbi-bomb-moham
ud.html.csp

Quote:

---

Some residents of this famously liberal city are unnerved, not only by a plot to bomb an annual Christmas tree-lighting ceremony last week but also by the police tactics in the case.

They questioned whether federal agents crossed the line by training 19-year-old Somali-American Mohamed O. Mohamud to blow up a bomb, giving him $3,000 cash to rent an apartment and providing him with a fake bomb.

The FBI affidavit “was a picture painted to make the suspect sound like a dangerous terrorist,” said Portland photographer Rich Burroughs. “I don’t think it’s clear at all that this person would have ever had access to even a fake bomb if not for the FBI.”

---

So, looks like the real Terrorist training camps are in Langley and Quantico, like I been sayin all along, neh ?

-F

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

If the powers can convince you that you need to surrender your resources and your freedoms to them in order to secure your safety, they win.

Happy people have no motivation to surrender anything to the government. Only frightened people do.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by pizmobeach:
As far as surrendering my freedoms, what freedoms and what do they want with them?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
1) There aren't enough real Terrorists to catch.

or

2) We can't catch the real ones.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
That's a good question. I can only think of two answers.

1) There aren't enough real Terrorists to catch.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
or

2) We can't catch the real ones.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

If I make a shampoo gun to kill terrorists with, and it fails to kill terrorists, would you fund a better shampoo gun? One with extra conditioner?

Or would you tell me that the shampoo gun isn't working, and to allocate my existing funds better?

--Anthony

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by pizmobeach:
The trouble with your analogy is - how do you know their approach isn't working? Airport security isn't failing because it isn't catching anybody, it's succeeding because it isn't catching anybody.

---

Quote:

---

Homer: Not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol must be working like a charm.
Lisa: That's specious reasoning, Dad.
Homer: Thank you, dear.
Lisa: By your logic I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away.
Homer: Oh, how does it work?
Lisa: It doesn't work.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: It's just a stupid rock.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: But I don't see any tigers around, do you?
[Homer thinks of this, then pulls out some money]
Homer: Lisa, I want to buy your rock.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

I think Dandruff Control is the key, myself.

Unfortunately, there really isn't any effective oversight or review process. They write their own report cards. The only time anyone else gets seriously involved is when they fail in spectacular fashion. Then they get reviewed intensely, receive more money, and start writing their own report-cards again.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by canttakesky:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by pizmobeach:
The trouble with your analogy is - how do you know their approach isn't working? Airport security isn't failing because it isn't catching anybody, it's succeeding because it isn't catching anybody.

---

Reminds me of the Bear Patrol episode on the Simpsons (Much Apu About Nothing, Season 7).

Quote:

---

Homer: Not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol must be working like a charm.
Lisa: That's specious reasoning, Dad.
Homer: Thank you, dear.
Lisa: By your logic I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away.
Homer: Oh, how does it work?
Lisa: It doesn't work.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: It's just a stupid rock.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: But I don't see any tigers around, do you?
[Homer thinks of this, then pulls out some money]
Homer: Lisa, I want to buy your rock.

---

That is why we have the scientific method. When you can't tell whether something is "working" or not, you try it on two groups which are as identical as possible. Change only the thing you are testing. Measure the outcomes in both groups. It's called an experiment.

For example, if they really wanted to see if X method is "working," they should try X in one group, and no X in the second group. Have the same group of people with various prohibited items walk through and see how many get caught. Then do it again and again with different people in different cities and scenarios. You'll start to get an idea of how effective X is.

--Can't Take (my gorram) Sky

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

I think Dandruff Control is the key, myself.

Unfortunately, there really isn't any effective oversight or review process. They write their own report cards. The only time anyone else gets seriously involved is when they fail in spectacular fashion. Then they get reviewed intensely, receive more money, and start writing their own report-cards again.

By the standard of not catching anybody while avoiding serious Terrorist incidents... Airport security was a smashing success for years before 9/11.

--Anthony

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

I think Dandruff Control is the key, myself.

Unfortunately, there really isn't any effective oversight or review process. They write their own report cards. The only time anyone else gets seriously involved is when they fail in spectacular fashion. Then they get reviewed intensely, receive more money, and start writing their own report-cards again.

---

Bingo. Witness the latest WikiLeaks fiasco. Note the statements and tones coming out of the Pentagon and the State Department in the wake of the latest leaks. There's tons of talk about how "we need to beef up our security" and how "it's unfortunate that these documents got leaked" - and not once has anyone said that maybe, just MAYBE, we (a) shouldn't be trash-talking other folks in "secret" e-mails and memos, or saying anything about them in an e-mail that we wouldn't say to their faces, or (b) we probably don't need to classify things as "secret" or "classified" just because they contain potentially embarrassing characterizations of other diplomats and world leaders.

I fully expect the U.S. government to come out any day now and demand an apology from Julian Assange. America is now the abusive husband on the world stage... "See what you made me do? Why did you make me beat you again? Why do you do this to me? Why do you continue to make me brutalize you? Are you ready to apologize for your behavior?"66

And yes, the State Department wants to go back to writing its own report cards again. And they want us to make sure they have enough money to insure that NOBODY can get their "sensitive" documents, so they can go right back to trash-talking the rest of the world without ever worrying about the consequences. And of course, they'll now need a much larger budget to see to that "security"...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by pizmobeach:
Why presume they haven't been experimenting and testing?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by canttakesky:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by pizmobeach:
Why presume they haven't been experimenting and testing?

---

As a general rule, I presume negatives before I presume positives.

I presume unicorns do NOT exist until you show me evidence that they do.

If you tell me you've seen a unicorn with your own eyes, I'll presume you are NOT lying unless someone shows me evidence that you lied.

If you have evidence that they did experiment and test the effectiveness of AIT scanning, I will happily stand corrected.

--Can't Take (my gorram) Sky

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by pizmobeach:
You double your chances of being right if you don't presume either.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by estead:
Hello Fremdfirma,
As a transplanted Portlander who was not asked, but is not upset with what we know so far of the way the FBI has handled this case, I have a question for you.

When so few facts are available about the case, why do you so quickly agree with an uninvolved photographer's opinion, rather than waiting to hear what actually happened?

---

Quote:

---

We have been told of phantoms and ideal dangers to lead us into measures which will, in my opinion, be the ruin of our country.
-William Grayson
11 June 1788

---