Not sure what you mean, are you saying they go after white terrorists unfairly when compared to Muslim ones?
So you do work for the FBI? As a lawyer?
Keep trying to change the convo. You have no insight into all of the active cases the FBI is running around the country. You don't.
Well your point here does not stand as there is evidence here. Your point is a strawman and dishonest.
Now we can argue over WHAT threshold of evidence the law should act upon. But there is evidence here of this guy being a nutter, weaponed up and with a plan to do harm. He has named specific people as targets and was seeking their location and addresses.
I demur to that question. Why would I need to have access to all of the FBI's active cases to comment on this established phenomenon?
By that standard, no one can comment on any matters involving federal law enforcement—not even you.
And moreso, how do we know that the post 9/11 infrastructure to root out 'plots against the US' is not catching stuff like this too just as a matter of course (key word searches, etc) and therefore what is to be done when such a kook is caught up?
He seems to be suggesting they do follow up on and just ignore it?
An argument of mental issues can be made for both cases but it's more a matter of why some people are attracted to extremism and others aren't. It could be related to mental health, or simply frustration, bitterness, lack of morals... whatever it is, it's a trait that only certain people have. Some even go from a radicalism to another, they can jump from a religious cult to a radical veganism and so forth. Some people are simply like that.Because he's obviously an unstable lunatic based on the information released.Not some religiously motivated terrorist* who is sane and malicious.
*originally wrote lunatic by mistake
I'm saying that the trend for the last 15 years or so is to seek or artificially create some statistical parity between demographics of criminals/suspects. There are many forces driving that push, but the upshot is that a "White Right-Wing Terrorist" is the biggest fish in the pond. Recall the government's treatment of those people involved in the Bundy Ranch standoff (one of whom was killed during an arrest, even though it was later determined that a crime was not committed). Compare that to the relatively lackluster zeal with which it investigates people like Sirraj Wahhaj, who actively works to subvert local law enforcement in favor of Sharia law, and who intel sources agree helped facilitate the first WTC bombings. Consider the amount of thwarted terrorist attacks in the last month alone. Why do we hear so much about that MAGA Bomber guy?
I would rather if law enforcement (and journalists) approached suspects in a neutral, even-handed manner. Unfortunately, they do not. That's why I'm going to wait until more facts come out before I condemn the guy mentioned in the OP.
I haven't heard about Dylan Roof in years, no one brings that up anymore.I have a sense for how local offices prioritize certain investigations. One Timothy McVeigh is worth 3 Muhammad Attas, or 10 Lee Boyd Malvos, in the eyes of the leadership. Why? Because of the message it sends. It's the same reason why we still hear about Dylan Roof, even though the statistics warrant focusing anti-hate crime efforts elsewhere.
Now why would he want to target Journalists....
If someone knows of a specific plan, that changes everything. In the Vegas shooter's case, it was very difficult to preempt because he went to great lengths to conceal his plan. By contrast, this guy sounds like he's just venting on the internet. I'd need to see more evidence that he had a specific plan.
What established phenomenon? You haven't established anything, but you have made big assumptions about who the FBI is and isn't surveilling.
Except I'm not the one making the claim that they aren't watching some group of ambiguous people. That would require knowing what active surveillance operations they're running.
The established phenomenon is selective enforcement of laws in order to vindicate social justice interests. It's something that has been happening for a while. There are studies that establish this, and some departments/agencies have even embraced this goal explicitly. You can also extrapolate it by analyzing data from the DOJ's websites, or by reading annual "threat assessments" closely. As always, you can observe this phenomenon in public life.
I didn't make the claim that they aren't watching certain groups of people. The claim was that they police certain groups less aggressively.
So you would rather show complete apathy until actual lives are lost instead of preventing it from happening in the first place. Gotcha.
The police had enough reasons to take his threat seriously. Making a move on him was the right thing to do.