Hacker News Reader

Comment by ta234234 | Hacker News Reader

    targeted to be blown up

Mainly by the FBI, based on that wikipedia article.

FBI: Hey, do you want to blow something up?

Terrorist: OK

FBI: Here's a bomb, go blow something up.

Terrorist: OK

[click]

FBI: You're under arrest!

Sure, the guy committed a crime, but was I wouldn't say the event was "targeted to be blown up". It was a sting operation. A small probability threat was amplified by the FBI for the purpose of making a case. Does that justify TSA goons everywhere? The same ones that won't let you bring your bottle of Coke on an airplane?

Governments love to use "larger than life" enemies to justify a disproportionate invasion of liberty. It used to be Communists, now it's Terrorists.

View on HN

When you read the actual indictments and court transcripts in cases like this, the would-be terrorists turn out to be nothing like the passive actor you hypothesize here, but rather display a fair degree of initiative; they have typically come to the FBI's attention because people around them are alarmed by their aspirations and report them to law enforcement.

There are tough legal questions about where the borderline between facilitation and encouragement lies. But someone who willingly goes through the steps required t detonate what they believe to be a fully armed truck bomb is not a mere innocent victim. The correct answer to 'Hey, do you want to blow something up?' is 'No, because that would be crazy and horrible.'

Google for 'operation flex' if you want to see how the FBI uses your tax dollars to fight terrorism.

I think that's a faulty generalization. Since I read criminal indictments for fun I'm quite familiar with the FBI's methods. Please don't take this to mean I think they're always ethical, legal, or effective.

I didn't say the man was innocent. What I said was that the event the parent poster referred to was not really targeted by terrorists, but rather by an FBI sting operation. This means that the event was never in any real danger, and using it to justify expanding TSA security theater is not valid.

this happens way more than people (care to?) notice

Reply on news.ycombinator.com