Poor, sorry schmuck of a kid

The FBI saved us from a terrorist attack that was planned by … the FBI. Nice work, fellas!

Here’s what happened, as I understand it: Mohamed Osman Mohamud was hanging out with bad people, having communications with unsavory sorts. His Dad, a westernized Muslim, was deeply concerned, and approached the FBI with this information, asking for their help in setting the kid straight.

The FBI instead enticed the kid into a sting operation, one that will probably not stand if he gets his day in court. (That’s why people in power do not like habeas corpus. They’d rather just put people away without trial.) Mohamud has pleaded innocent.

Anything else? Probably. The FBI seems anxious to produce a thwarted terror incident – all these months and years without one makes for a poor scare campaign. So manufacturing one seems a nice solution to that problem.

But what about the kid? Why is he pissed at the U.S.? It beats me why all of these “terrorists” happen to come from countries where the U.S. happens to have troops on the ground and where our bloody covert ops are being carried out.

14 thoughts on “Poor, sorry schmuck of a kid

    1. Hadn’t thought of that angle. It’s just extraordinary that, given all the people we kill, that there is not more revenge extracted. People seem to realize that the American people and the American government are not the same thing.

      Like

      1. Really? I thought we only killed women, children, and other powerless people, and that was the reason why they never hit back.

        I just never thought of the idea that the people we kill want to revenge themselves on the American government and not on the American people. But when I stop to think about what is in the so-called White House, your idea starts to make sense.

        Like

        1. I don’t for a second pretend to have wisdom on this subject. I’m thinking back on polls I have read where the American people are not unpopular, but American foreign policy is, and that people are able to distinguish, knowing that we are famously and deeply indoctrinated.

          But it should come as no surprise to you that those we call “terrorists” are usually young men, angry at the loss of family and robbed of prospects for a decent future by … American foreign policy.

          Like

          1. In truth, that does come at as a surprise to me.

            For some odd reason, I always thought terrorists were just psychopaths who hated life. You know, because they were born stupid or ugly, or they could not find a paying job, or they had spent too much time reading bloodthirsty religious books.

            I also thought that some of them had trouble finding a date on Saturday night. (Hey, look at that kid’s picture again. Would you let your daughter go out with something that?)

            Now, however, I am enlightened by your convoluted but thoroughly convincing logic. Why, somebody killed terrorist’s whole family!

            Like

          2. Oh. I also liked the part about how dumb we Americans are. It never crossed my mind that terrorists take pity on the American people because they are so stupid.

            I guess if we were smart, they would have killed us all by now. You think?

            Like

            1. Well, I’m not as well versed on psychopathy as you, but do know that there was never, in recorded history, a suicide bombing in Afghanistan until … the Americans showed up.

              But I yield to your wisdom on this subject.

              Like

              1. I thought you were the wise one on terrorism. Why are you throwing this back on me? I was just beginning to understand your novel theory about American foreign policy creating terrorists.

                As a matter of fact, I just finished doing a back-of-the-envelope calculation based on your claim that American foreign policy has killed hundreds of thousands of Muslims in the Middle East. (As a former accountant, I am sure you will be able to appreciate this.) Assuming just six people in each Muslim family, and assuming American foreign policy kills all of them except one, who will become the terrorist, American foreign policy should have produced tens of thousands of terrorists seeking to avenge their family deaths.

                Based on that really rough calculation, we (not we the people, but we the American government) should be attacked by 150 to 200 suicide bombers every day. I have no idea why that is not happening. Either American foreign policy terrorist production capabilities are not as good as you claim, or the TSA is actually doing a great job. What is your wise opinion?

                As for there being no suicide bombings in Afghanistan in recorded history until the Americans showed up, are you saying American foreign policy taught Afghans how to blow themselves up? That makes no sense to me. Why would American foreign policy go to all the trouble of creating terrorists only have them explode?

                Like

                1. Hard to believe that you are really that obtuse. All those young men that offered resistance to the Iraq invasion are called “terrorists”, but what motivates them to fight to the death for a cause? When our boys do it, we call it heroism. When they do it, it’s called terrorism.

                  Afghanistan? Does the word “duh” carry meaning for you?

                  Anyway, I’ve been trying to understand you better these past weeks, and not making much progress. When I first came upon your insults and ramblings, I thought you were just a kid in Mom’s basement, but since that time realize that there is more to you. Your economic theories are, in my view, insane, in that no matter how often reality interferes, you do not change your outlook. That is standard “free market” thinking, and I don’t care about it much. You only offer what Budge intellectualizes – wealth-serving nonsense.

                  So I ignore all of that. Then comes the sociopath – the harsh words about lesser breeds and races and the necessity of killing and the wonders of warfare. Most sociopaths are clever enough to mask those feelings, to imitate normal people in their daily lives. You are not clever about that, but use a pseudonym, so that perhaps the Internet and the blogs are simply a way to release those feelings without your associates and family knowing who you really are.

                  But not many sociopaths are so inclined – perhaps they are getting their rocks off in real life and have no need for this outlet. If that is the case, I would speculate that you are not getting yours off in real life, and so use this outlet for validation not otherwise attained.

                  You’re smart enough, I see, not successful, and so frustrated, in my view, and so come here and other places to entertain us with the persona “Max Bucks.”

                  Don’t get me wrong – unlike others, I enjoy you. Keep on keeping on.

                  Like

                  1. This being the end of the calendar year, I have to go on a bond run over the next couple of weeks. I will be meeting many wealthy people in the Southwest, and maybe I will share some stories of their success with you when I come back. I mean, with the right guidance and mentoring, you do have the potential of still becoming something even this late in life; and maybe hearing how others have made a success of their lives will give you some inspiration. Anyway, do not be dismayed by my absence.

                    [Advice Section, Next]

                    You really need to get off this psychoanalytic kick. You sound as silly as that guy who claims to live on an Indian reservation. (Maybe he is drunk all the time and just thinks he is an Indian!) I have told you all you need to know about Max Bucks: He is rich. He is educated. He is a realist. What is so very complicated about that?

                    Also, you need to add some new elements to your act and get rid of the old stuff. You know, the stuff about America creating terrorists is old; the stuff about the free market being a myth is old; the stuff about the population being brainwashed is old; the stuff about journalists being sellouts is old; the stuff about two political parties actually being one political party is old.

                    Most of all, like every self-appointed savior of the human race, you need to develop a better sense of humor, especially a sense of the absurd and the ironic. Take that picture up above. If you had any sense of humor, you would have said, “Pity this pathetic attempt by Satan to fool us. He has been trying for millennia to make creatures that look like human beings. And this is the best he can do?”

                    Ho ho ho. Merry Christmas, Trotsky!

                    Like

      2. Hadn’t thought of that angle

        Sure you have. That’s why you haven’t moved to Detroit.

        But it should come as no surprise to you that those we call “terrorists” are usually young men, angry at the loss of family and robbed of prospects for a decent future by … American foreign policy.

        Yes, they are young men, but they are almost wholly middle class, from families far from the action, on the rise economically. Cf this guy, plopped down in America to benefit from our infrastructure and social stability to gain better prospects and life expectancy than back in Somalia. I don’t see Somalia reciprocating the deal.

        Like

          1. And you offer…what?

            Bin Laden, Muhammad Atta, al Zawahiri, not exactly poor boys losing kith and kin to the Great Satan. Exactly which family members did Mohamed Osman Mohamud lose to a trigger pulled by an American? Odds are losses here are to someone with a darker shade of pale, but who’s really keeping count of what matters?

            Like

Leave a reply to Mark T Cancel reply