Portland mosque of kid FBI set up with fake bombs gets burned

[Lonestar_logic]

Why would I want to bet on something I think is unlikely? I have said more than once the FBI probably has enough evidence to get a conviction, yet you are running around accusing me of supporting terrorism, and all sorts of other things. The reason so many people here are laughing about that is that I have posted here that we may have to go to war with Islam because it is a clear and present danger to our way of life. Every time you try to paint me as a bleeding heart liberal with no common sense you just look more silly.

Enjoy.

I never accused you of any such thing. But I find it odd that on one hand you defend the terrorist and are willling to give him the benefit of the doubt but then expect a conviction on the other.

If you're painted as a bleeding heart liberal that is of your own doing and I must say that coming to the defense of a terrorist probably helped.

Why? He is innocent until proven guilty, that is a fact. Another fact is that the government rarely looses when it decides to go after someone, even if they are innocent. That is because the entire system is set up to favor the prosecution, and the defense is not allowed to tell the jury that they have a right to decide issues of law, and nullify any law they think is unconstitutional. The first is being principled, and the second is being cynical. I am a principled cynic.

You're something alright.

Another fact that you failed to mention is your inability to prove the FBI has a history of entrapment and I doubt you can prove that the entire system is designed to help the prosecution. Do you honestly think no guilty people go free? Can you say OJ Simpson? There are plenty more examples of guilty people going free due to minor legal technicalities.

By the way, I'm not against giving this idiot a fair trial, though I do believe he is guilty od attempting to kill thousand of Americans and I'm confident a jury will find in favor of the prosecution.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

You must have excelled in school at getting other people to do your homework for you. My guess is that you were a star athlete, and would not even have graduated without that going for you. Do the research yourself.

In other words, you can't support your claim.

You're concession is duly noted.

I did support my claim, your confusion is duly noted.

No you didn't, you claimed a history of FBI entrapment and you failed in proving it.

You showed a wikipedia site on entrapment that didn't say one thing about FBI involvement. All you proved is that were cases where the courts found that entrapment did occur.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I never accused you of any such thing. But I find it odd that on one hand you defend the terrorist and are willling to give him the benefit of the doubt but then expect a conviction on the other.

If you're painted as a bleeding heart liberal that is of your own doing and I must say that coming to the defense of a terrorist probably helped.

Why? He is innocent until proven guilty, that is a fact. Another fact is that the government rarely looses when it decides to go after someone, even if they are innocent. That is because the entire system is set up to favor the prosecution, and the defense is not allowed to tell the jury that they have a right to decide issues of law, and nullify any law they think is unconstitutional. The first is being principled, and the second is being cynical. I am a principled cynic.

You're something alright.

Another fact that you failed to mention is your inability to prove the FBI has a history of entrapment and I doubt you can prove that the entire system is designed to help the prosecution. Do you honestly think no guilty people go free? Can you say OJ Simpson? There are plenty more examples of guilty people going free due to minor legal technicalities.

By the way, I'm not against giving this idiot a fair trial, though I do believe he is guilty od attempting to kill thousand of Americans and I'm confident a jury will find in favor of the prosecution.

Why should I acknowledge something that has not happened? I gave you examples of entrapment, which you denied ever happened, and then you refused to read them. The FBI has had so many problems with entrapment that they screen all undercover investigations before they are approved, But don't worry your little brain about it, I haven't proved anything.


Undercover investigations and the entrapment defense | FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin,The | Find Articles at BNET

 

[manifold]

Lonestar might as well just repeatedly post "La La La I am not listening, La La La I am not listening"


Well, that's how most of his posts translate anyway.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Why? He is innocent until proven guilty, that is a fact. Another fact is that the government rarely looses when it decides to go after someone, even if they are innocent. That is because the entire system is set up to favor the prosecution, and the defense is not allowed to tell the jury that they have a right to decide issues of law, and nullify any law they think is unconstitutional. The first is being principled, and the second is being cynical. I am a principled cynic.

You're something alright.

Another fact that you failed to mention is your inability to prove the FBI has a history of entrapment and I doubt you can prove that the entire system is designed to help the prosecution. Do you honestly think no guilty people go free? Can you say OJ Simpson? There are plenty more examples of guilty people going free due to minor legal technicalities.

By the way, I'm not against giving this idiot a fair trial, though I do believe he is guilty od attempting to kill thousand of Americans and I'm confident a jury will find in favor of the prosecution.

Why should I acknowledge something that has not happened? I gave you examples of entrapment, which you denied ever happened, and then you refused to read them. The FBI has had so many problems with entrapment that they screen all undercover investigations before they are approved, But don't worry your little brain about it, I haven't proved anything.


Undercover investigations and the entrapment defense | FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin,The | Find Articles at BNET

I'll give you an E for effort but you still haven't proved a history of entrapment by the FBI. Why not just admit that you made the shit up and be done with it. I'll concede that incidents of entrapment has occurred but it no way constitutes a history of entrapment.

It appears that a few cases constitutes an entire history in your warped thinking.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Lonestar might as well just repeatedly post "La La La I am not listening, La La La I am not listening"


Well, that's how most of his posts translate anyway.

People should be more careful of what they say. To say an entire group has a history of something but can only show a few isolated events, does not constitute having a history.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Lonestar might as well just repeatedly post "La La La I am not listening, La La La I am not listening"


Well, that's how most of his posts translate anyway.

I am getting that impression.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Lonestar might as well just repeatedly post "La La La I am not listening, La La La I am not listening"


Well, that's how most of his posts translate anyway.

People should be more careful of what they say. To say an entire group has a history of something but can only show a few isolated events, does not constitute having a history.

The FBI is not a group, it is an organization.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Wonderful. I wonder how long it will take before the defenders of stupidity will step in and blame someone else for this.

Kinda how you blamed the FBI for the fact that a Muslim kid intended to blow up hundreds of innocent people?

Would you rather the FBI let people with these intents just go free and hope they never get a real bomb?

Where did I do that? What I blame the FBI for is wasting time and resources fooling an idiot into thinking he was going to blow up a bunch of people.

How else do you make the slam dunk case ?