Chicago teen’s jihad foiled by FBI
The Chicago Tribune tells the story of Adel Daoud, a local 18-year-old who decided that, despite the advice of his “sheikh” and everyone around him, he wanted to kill Americans. So he parked a Jeep Cherokee and tried to detonate the bomb inside it as he walked away. But the bomb was inert and handed to little Adel, by the FBI;
In May, two undercover FBI operatives started exchanging messages with him.
One of the operatives told Daoud he had a cousin who wanted to commit terrorism. Daoud allegedly replied that he “would love to meet him.”
The “cousin” was actually an FBI agent. He and Daoud met several times in Villa Park. During their first meeting, in July, the agent told Daoud “that he and his brothers were interested in attacking a major city, including perhaps Chicago,” the affidavit said.
At their next meeting, Daoud allegedly gave the agent a handwritten list of 29 potential targets, including military recruiting offices, bars, malls and tourist attractions in the Chicago area.
Daoud allegedly told the agent that he wanted it to be clear that the attack was an act of terrorism.
Daoud told the FBI that he would be disappointed if he only killed five or six people, he wanted the attack to result in massive casualties.
Category: Terror War
The FBI is pretty good at putting ideas in peoples head. This kid wouldn’t have done a thing if it wasn’t for them saying they could help him do it. This is definition entrapment.
@1. Thank you, Clarence Darrow. Is being dead wrong your job or is it just a hobby?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHAqoWQFOvc&feature=player_embedded
How about the guy the FBI hooked up with a van, put fake 55 gallon barrels in it, poured diesel on it, then gave the guy a phone. When he attempted to call it, they arrested him.
“When an Oregon college student, Mohamed Osman Mohamud, thought of using a car bomb to attack a festive Christmas-tree lighting ceremony in Portland, the F.B.I. provided a van loaded with six 55-gallon drums of “inert material,” harmless blasting caps, a detonator cord and a gallon of diesel fuel to make the van smell flammable. An undercover F.B.I. agent even did the driving, with Mr. Mohamud in the passenger seat. To trigger the bomb the student punched a number into a cellphone and got no boom, only a bust.”
Well, I know plenty of FBI agents and federal prosecutors and none of them ever talked me into committing terrorism, so I don’t know if I just met the more incompetent ones, or if they thought I was a lost cause without an Arabic name.
My money is on not an Arabic name. Haha
Karlen are you a fan of Ron Paul?
Okay, Clarence, the issue is not whether entrapment ever occurs; it is whether the bonehead in Chicago was, as you conclusively and assuredly stated, entrapped. If he wanted to commit a crime and law enforcement provided him with what he believed was the means or tools to commit that crime, that’s not entrapment. It is when law enforcement induces or persuades someone to commit a crime that the person would not otherwise have committed or attempted to commit that entrapment exists. Keep your authorative YouTube links and stay away from Wikpedia.
No, I’m not a Ron Paul fanatic.
I also find it funny that if anything is posted that goes against the grain, you guys just attack them. Shit, I posted something that agreed with you on several occasions, and you read it completely wrong and attacked me then. I’ve even submitted things to Jonn that were posted, the retard trying to pose as Marine in Portland/Seattle OWS (I can’t recall which, it was up in the NW though).
Okay karlen, what if the various LEO’s HADN’T done this, and our little home-grown Achmed here had in fact run into someone who would have given him real “boom-boom” shit?
What then?
“I also find it funny that if anything is posted that goes against the grain, you guys just attack them.”
Well, Clarence, if by “them” you mean YOU, you’re likely correct except for one detail: You will not be attacked IF what you say is either true or arguably correct.
___________________________________________________________
Have fun, Sparky
If it’s arguably correct?
How many times does the FBI have to assist people in bullshit “terrorist” attacks?
I left you for Sparky to play with. I’m done with you, Clarence.
Why are you calling me Clarence
Sorry, AirCav. Plant tripped Friday night so they’re starting the outage early.
Better to be working 6-12’s than argue with someone over obvious shit.
“Panic in the City”, 1968 film with Howard Duff (superb actor) in the role of an FBI agent tracking Russian spies who are building a nuclear weapon in the basement of a house in the Los Angele suburbs.
Fast forward to April 1995, the Oklahoma City truck bombing that blew up the Alfred Murragh Building and killed 168 people, many of whom were children. No nukes, just fuel oil and fertilizer, and a couple of disgruntled good ol’ boys.
Fast forward to September 2001, a few days after the hijackers’ attacks, an alert maintenance man found cylinders in the steam tunnels at the Univ. of Illinois Circle Campus and notified the FBI. The cylinders were found to contain cyanide and were traced to someone who labeled himself Dr. Death.
Why does the FBI set up a sting? To stop this crap before it happens, you incredible moron. So that a useless piece of crap like you can sleep safely in your little bed at night and go to a bar after work without worrying about whether or not someone is going to blow your silly ass to smithereens.
“Why does the FBI set up a sting? To stop this crap before it happens, you incredible moron”. I wonder if Karnak, er, Karlen will grasp that simple reality, Ex.
Where the hell do these turds come from?! karlen, I can only surmise you’re a jihadist defending another jihadist. STFU
UpNorth, one can only hope.
You caught me! I just decided to suppress my inner jihadist feelings while I was in the Marine Corps, but now that I’m out…
I still don’t see where your stories from #16 come from. The FBI didn’t provide anything to those attempted terrorist acts, while the OP was full of FBI provided equipment.
Wait a minute I didn’t see a vet connection yet so I guess the media isn’t picking this up.
I can see Karlen’s point. Now how far would have our little Johnny Jihad gone had he not found someone to supply him? Who knows, now in this case they really discovered a shitheel of an individual that didn’t have the common decency to attempt to blow himself up with his “bomb”. Now I would have been much happier if they would have made initial contact with him then followed him to see how/if there is a recruitment in the U.S. Right now they have a dipshit with a little value rather than a potential intelligence gathering tool.
The FBI did not entrap him. He was provided what he wanted. That builds the case in that he could have just been talking tough and gotten out, but, when offered what he needed to accomplish his mission, he continued. They proved the intent. The FBI did not provide him with the means to kill anyone (inert bomb), only enough rope to hang himself. In the figurative sense, unfortunately.
The FBI has done this several times before. Remember the synagogue bomber? All inert materials that were passed off as C-4 by an FBI agent. Same with the college dude in Texas, who drove his Mercedes SUV into the shopping mall full of what he thought was explosives, so he could blow up all the holiday shoppers. They don’t tell these chuckleheads what to do, they just provide the means.
Now, I understand what Karlen is saying; how brave and jihadi would these idiots be if they had to really jump through hoops to make it happen? Most of the types of explosives these yahoos want are hard to come by, if you’re just looking on the internet. Most people with access to those types of explosives aren’t cruising the internet waiting for customers to come to them. When ever they try to make the explosives themselves, they either don’t work, or they blow their own ass off before getting to the target. The Times Square bomber comes to mind, as well as the other vehicle they found with the home made bombs under the bridge in New Jersey.
While I don’t know for sure, I think the FBI is making it too easy for these chuckleheads. Make them work for it a little.
I agree with the points made that there was no entrapment. Bottom line is that the kid made a CHOICE, and had the opportunity to back off at any given time. The enticement in his little deranged mind was the material that was provided to carry out his goals. He would have still been arrested for conspiracy.
This young man needs psychiatric help. He is obviously misguided and deranged.
Well, perhaps “karlen” can answer a question for us. Which would you prefer to see, karlen – the FBI prevent a crime, or the FBI investigate a terrorist bombing causing multiple murders?
From the details reported, there appears to be no entrapment. Doesn’t mean that there was none, but it certainly doesn’t look that way. You can be assured that it will come up at trial and will be sorted out by the court.
Between now and then, none of us knows with certainty one way or the other. What we DO know is that this dasturdly deed was not successful. I will take that as a very good thing.
It’s a win for the good guys.
@ # 1 Colon or Claren … whatever the f your name is:
“The FBI is pretty good at putting ideas in peoples head. This kid wouldn’t have done a thing if it wasn’t for them saying they could help him do it. This is definition entrapment.”
You are absolutely clueless. The kid drove this train, not the FBI. The FBI would not have a case if they put the idea in his head. The kid asked for the help and he got it from what he thought was a group of terrorists. This is not entrapment, it is good investigative work, in addition to building a solid case.
CLUELESS!
The FBI and the CIA both have people who spend their days looking for key words like explosive, jihad, whatever the vocabulary is that may or may not lead to someone like this, just as the FBI spends a good deal of time searching the net for child porn rings and drug dealers.
It is preventive maintenance, which is what you do when you give a damn about something, like your car, your family or your country.
Here’s the difference…
“Hey little kid, come on do you wanna use a bomb? Oh come on… You know you wanna… I’ll just give you one. Please oh pretty please… COME ON AT LEAST HOLD THE DETONATOR FOR ME WHILE I TAKE MY PHOTOS FOR FACEBOOK!” Entrapment.
“You want to buy a bomb. Sure I have one for sale.” Not entrapment. Technically a STING OPERATION if the items are illegal.
If you are ready willing and able to do a crime except you need some hardware, then in no way did they coerce you. All they did was test and SHOW THE COURTS exactly how stupid you were to want to do this.
To entrap you have to persuade someone who DOESN’T want to do it. And they had better prove they didn’t want to.
This seems to be the confusing point for Karlen.
Jason, it’s all over the Chicago news. I haven’t seen any ID photos or mug shots yet, but when I do, I will post a link to them.
Let’s see how karlen did on this one….entrapment holds if all three conditions are fulfilled:
1) The idea for committing the crime came from the government agents and not from the person accused of the crime. (article states Adel wanted to kill Americans despite advice from his sheik and others not to do that…)
Condition 1 fail
2) Government agents then persuaded or talked the person into committing the crime. Simply giving someone the opportunity to commit a crime is not the same as persuading them to commit that crime. (article states Adel gave the agents a list of targets, they provided him with what he thought were the means but Adel was already inclined to commit the crime)
Condition 2 fail
3) The person was not ready and willing to commit the crime before interaction with the government agents. (article state Adel Daoud wanted to inflict massive casualties and for it to be well known as an act of terror, shows intent regardless of agent interaction)
Condition 3 fail
Out of 3 definitions Adel Daoud fails to meet any condition of entrapment under the law. Adel Daoud should spend the rest of his miserable little life (which i hope is ugly, brutish, and short) behind the walls of a maximum security penitentiary with 24 hour lockdown.
I was kinda being facetious…I haven’t been watching the news that much.
If he wanted to commit the crime, had a list of targets, why would the FBI even go forward with the fake explosives and driving the van for him? They pretty well have enough to arrest him on conspiracy charges.
@34 not enough jail time. Additionally if his co-conspirators were only agents it lessens the charge.
Driving a bomb-laden SUV to a target and attempting to detonate puts your crimes on an entirely different level. One that involves little daylight and little movement beyond your cell.
@ 34 ….wrong. There are several other factors in developing a case that can be prosecuted.
Conspiracy with who? Your imaginary friend? Are you a lawyer or just play one on TV. You are making no sence!
Look here Colon … you clearly are way in over your head on this one.
If you want to play FBI … go down to the Federal Building and apply for a job with the FBI. I hear they are looking for a mail room assistant.
Till then just read crime novels to bone up on basic law!
@34
Prevention. If they make the supplies available and can make certain they’re inert, that’s life-saving right there. Much better than him potentially getting effective supplies and hoping they stop him in time.
Conspiracy requires more than one party. Otherwise it’s just planning.
Also, the schmuckosaurus in question actually trying to commit the crime is much more damning than him just thinking about it, ranting on some webpages and maybe making some doodles in a notebook. It shows he fully intended to blow some people up. It’s a lot harder for him to get over on the justice system that way.
A bunch of full grown men acting like children around here. My name is spelled out correctly right next to what I post and you still try to call me Colon. Real mature.
Clarence: Loosen the chistrap on your leather helmet, pal. It’s too tight.
Yo Larkin … breath slowly … it is called Satire. Don’t take it personally … embrace it!
@38 But your making false accusations during flights of fancy are OK?
Alrighty then. So much for my making any effort to afford your opinions even the slightest bit of regard.
@34, a conspiracy of one? Really? How does one conspire with oneself?
UpNorth, you talk to your invisible friend Tony.
Well, UpNorth, it’s not all that difficult. Me, myself, and I sit down, usually around the kitchen table or on the porch. Generally I start the conversation but myself frequently beats me to it.
I must have had a brain fart, I forgot to check with me before posting. Or, with Tony, or Tyrone, or Achmed the Dead Terrorist.
Retard.