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

[Quantum Windbag]

We will undoubtably hear about the defence arguing that his client was ENTRAPPED.

And, while we can argue whether or not this is the case, the fact is not one of us really KNOW, now, do we?

Not that I want to rain on anybody's let's insult our fellow posters parade or anything, but until we know the details of the case, how can any of us take a position on this question?

Any one that can read the FBI affidavits knows.

No we do not.

An affidavit is based upon either the personal knowledge of the affiant or his or her information and belief. Personal knowledge is the recognition of particular facts by either direct observation or experience. Information and belief is what the affiant feels he or she can state as true, although not based on firsthand knowledge.

affidavit legal definition of affidavit. affidavit synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

What you have in the affidavit is one side of the story, consisting of what the person who wrote the affidavit believes to be true. It doesn't even have to be what the person who wrote it knows from personal experience, and can be based entirely on hearsay, as long as that person is willing to swear that it is true to the best of his knowledge.

Only a complete idiot would claim to have all the facts based on one side of the story, especially of that one side is the FBI. I find it funny that the New York Times felt a need to change a published story after the FBI affidavit came out.

The New York Times scrubs article in favor of FBI

If you have no problem with the government lying, and conveniently loosing evidence, don't whine if you some day find yourself in a position where they are willing to frame you to make headlines.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Who has expressed compassion for him?

You are.

Really? Link the compassion post(s).

Please do.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

We will undoubtably hear about the defence arguing that his client was ENTRAPPED.

And, while we can argue whether or not this is the case, the fact is not one of us really KNOW, now, do we?

Not that I want to rain on anybody's let's insult our fellow posters parade or anything, but until we know the details of the case, how can any of us take a position on this question?

Any one that can read the FBI affidavits knows.

No we do not.

An affidavit is based upon either the personal knowledge of the affiant or his or her information and belief. Personal knowledge is the recognition of particular facts by either direct observation or experience. Information and belief is what the affiant feels he or she can state as true, although not based on firsthand knowledge.

affidavit legal definition of affidavit. affidavit synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

What you have in the affidavit is one side of the story, consisting of what the person who wrote the affidavit believes to be true. It doesn't even have to be what the person who wrote it knows from personal experience, and can be based entirely on hearsay, as long as that person is willing to swear that it is true to the best of his knowledge.

Only a complete idiot would claim to have all the facts based on one side of the story, especially of that one side is the FBI. I find it funny that the New York Times felt a need to change a published story after the FBI affidavit came out.

The New York Times scrubs article in favor of FBI

If you have no problem with the government lying, and conveniently loosing evidence, don't whine if you some day find yourself in a position where they are willing to frame you to make headlines.

Couple that with the emails and the videos, they have a solid case.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/gener...-with-fake-bombs-gets-burned.html#post3028415

Thanks for proving my point.

Ever hear of reasonable doubt? The lack of proof of intent in this case counts toward reasonable doubt about said intent.

They have plenty of proof, emails and videos as well as sworn affidavits from eyewitnesses.

 

[High_Gravity]

You are.

Really? Link the compassion post(s).

Please do.

I don't have to, anyone reading this post can see what your trying to do, talking about stuff like reasonable doubt. You sound like that Somalis lawyer.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Any one that can read the FBI affidavits knows.

No we do not.

An affidavit is based upon either the personal knowledge of the affiant or his or her information and belief. Personal knowledge is the recognition of particular facts by either direct observation or experience. Information and belief is what the affiant feels he or she can state as true, although not based on firsthand knowledge.

affidavit legal definition of affidavit. affidavit synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

What you have in the affidavit is one side of the story, consisting of what the person who wrote the affidavit believes to be true. It doesn't even have to be what the person who wrote it knows from personal experience, and can be based entirely on hearsay, as long as that person is willing to swear that it is true to the best of his knowledge.

Only a complete idiot would claim to have all the facts based on one side of the story, especially of that one side is the FBI. I find it funny that the New York Times felt a need to change a published story after the FBI affidavit came out.

The New York Times scrubs article in favor of FBI

If you have no problem with the government lying, and conveniently loosing evidence, don't whine if you some day find yourself in a position where they are willing to frame you to make headlines.

Couple that with the emails and the videos, they have a solid case.

Have you seen the emails and the videos? If you have, how come no one else outside the FBI and the Justice Department has. including the defense. You are basing your entire opinion on one side of the story. Period.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

No we do not.

affidavit legal definition of affidavit. affidavit synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

What you have in the affidavit is one side of the story, consisting of what the person who wrote the affidavit believes to be true. It doesn't even have to be what the person who wrote it knows from personal experience, and can be based entirely on hearsay, as long as that person is willing to swear that it is true to the best of his knowledge.

Only a complete idiot would claim to have all the facts based on one side of the story, especially of that one side is the FBI. I find it funny that the New York Times felt a need to change a published story after the FBI affidavit came out.

The New York Times scrubs article in favor of FBI

If you have no problem with the government lying, and conveniently loosing evidence, don't whine if you some day find yourself in a position where they are willing to frame you to make headlines.

Couple that with the emails and the videos, they have a solid case.

Have you seen the emails and the videos? If you have, how come no one else outside the FBI and the Justice Department has. including the defense. You are basing your entire opinion on one side of the story. Period.

I'm basing my opinion on the reported facts. If you have a counter story that is backed up with eyewitness affidavits. I'd surely consider them and may reconsider my opinion. But I'm guessing you have nothing other than speculation.

I'm willing to wager that this kid will be found guilty in a court of law.

 

[bodecea]

Really? Link the compassion post(s).

Please do.

I don't have to, anyone reading this post can see what your trying to do, talking about stuff like reasonable doubt. You sound like that Somalis lawyer.

Reasonable doubt.....that's a Commie concept, isn't it?

 

[AllieBaba]

Reported "facts" is a misnomer, since there is no way to determine if the reports are impartial, truthful, or even real. Just because something is reported does not make it true, and people in the peanut gallery cannot judge the validity of a case like this.

 

[westwall]

I suppose it all comes down to this: Mohammed Muhammed THOUGHT that when he dialed that phone #, his car bomb would detonate and hundreds of people would die for the simple fact they wanted to watch a Christmas tree lighting.

That is what he thought he was going to do. It was his plan. It was his intent, his dream, his fantasy, and he thought 100% that he was doing it.


The bottom line is.......would you all rather he now be in jail for 100 years......or free to roam the US?

Pushin' up daisies.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Couple that with the emails and the videos, they have a solid case.

Have you seen the emails and the videos? If you have, how come no one else outside the FBI and the Justice Department has. including the defense. You are basing your entire opinion on one side of the story. Period.

I'm basing my opinion on the reported facts. If you have a counter story that is backed up with eyewitness affidavits. I'd surely consider them and may reconsider my opinion. But I'm guessing you have nothing other than speculation.

I'm willing to wager that this kid will be found guilty in a court of law.

No you are not, you are basing your opinion on an affidavit. The facts will come out at the trial. I fail to see why you do not grasp the difference, even after it was explained to you.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Really? Link the compassion post(s).

Please do.

I don't have to, anyone reading this post can see what your trying to do, talking about stuff like reasonable doubt. You sound like that Somalis lawyer.

Pointing out that the FBI has a history of entrapping young, Muslim, men into terror plots is bad because............

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Please do.

I don't have to, anyone reading this post can see what your trying to do, talking about stuff like reasonable doubt. You sound like that Somalis lawyer.

Reasonable doubt.....that's a Commie concept, isn't it?

He prefers the legal system where you are guilty until proven innocent.

 

[High_Gravity]

Please do.

I don't have to, anyone reading this post can see what your trying to do, talking about stuff like reasonable doubt. You sound like that Somalis lawyer.

Pointing out that the FBI has a history of entrapping young, Muslim, men into terror plots is bad because............

How did they entrap him into anything? this sick bastard wanted to kill as many Americans as possible. The FBI didn't brainwash him to think this way. Would you rather the FBI waited until he actually killed someone before they arrested him?

 

[High_Gravity]

I don't have to, anyone reading this post can see what your trying to do, talking about stuff like reasonable doubt. You sound like that Somalis lawyer.

Reasonable doubt.....that's a Commie concept, isn't it?

He prefers the legal system where you are guilty until proven innocent.

I prefer the legal system where the FBI locks up idiots who try to kill Americans.

 

[bodecea]

I don't have to, anyone reading this post can see what your trying to do, talking about stuff like reasonable doubt. You sound like that Somalis lawyer.

Reasonable doubt.....that's a Commie concept, isn't it?

He prefers the legal system where you are guilty until proven innocent.

Oh, the French system.

 

[High_Gravity]

Reasonable doubt.....that's a Commie concept, isn't it?

He prefers the legal system where you are guilty until proven innocent.

Oh, the French system.

Whatever.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Have you seen the emails and the videos? If you have, how come no one else outside the FBI and the Justice Department has. including the defense. You are basing your entire opinion on one side of the story. Period.

I'm basing my opinion on the reported facts. If you have a counter story that is backed up with eyewitness affidavits. I'd surely consider them and may reconsider my opinion. But I'm guessing you have nothing other than speculation.

I'm willing to wager that this kid will be found guilty in a court of law.

No you are not, you are basing your opinion on an affidavit. The facts will come out at the trial. I fail to see why you do not grasp the difference, even after it was explained to you.

I don't see how you cannot grasp the fact that I formed my opinion based on the emails, videos and eyewitness statements. You're willing to give this terrorist the benefit of the doubt without any supporting evidence. When he's convicted I expect you to eat some crow.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Please do.

I don't have to, anyone reading this post can see what your trying to do, talking about stuff like reasonable doubt. You sound like that Somalis lawyer.

Pointing out that the FBI has a history of entrapping young, Muslim, men into terror plots is bad because............

Let's see some evidence of this alleged history. Cite some cases that were thrown out because of so-called "entrapment".

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I don't have to, anyone reading this post can see what your trying to do, talking about stuff like reasonable doubt. You sound like that Somalis lawyer.

Reasonable doubt.....that's a Commie concept, isn't it?

He prefers the legal system where you are guilty until proven innocent.

Now you're really showing your stupidity.