Hacker News Reader

Comment by notavalleyman | Hacker News Reader

>There is significant evidence pointing to the fact that if the FBI had

At the risk of true scotmanning, no, I didn't come away from either the guardian nor wiki links thinking the evidence was "significant".

Actually I didn't see any evidence in either link, that without the FBI, no attack would have happened.

What evidence do you think could lead you to conclude, that no attack would happen if not for the FBI?

View on HN

> After becoming an informant, Chappel became the group's "XO", or executive officer, the second-highest rank in the group,[99] and then its highest-ranked officer after Morrison departed the group due to marital problems.[99] Chappel taught the group tactical skills he had learned in the U.S. Army,[99] offered the group use of a credit card (paid for by the FBI) to buy ammunition and supplies,[100] and in summer 2020 spent hours on the phone with Fox planning the kidnapping.[99]

So the leader of the group who was supplying the group was also being supplied by the FBI and was an informant for the FBI and acting under the FBI's direction. I don't know how you can get much more convincing then the lead dude who is spending hours planning it and who will got all the supplies was 100% of the FBI's pocket and then come to the belief that the FBI didn't directly instigate it.

Sorry but I still don't agre with you - actually from what you described here, it sounds like Chappel and the FBI are doing their job properly in infiltrating terror groups

The definition for a entrapment is that the crime would not have happened given that the government did not get involved.

Do you think with all of those facts that the crimes they are accused of would have happened without Chappel in the lead?

Nobody has pointed me towards evidence to that effect. So no

Reply on news.ycombinator.com