The FBI's Latest Terror Sting Nets 18 Year Old U.S. Citizen

18 year old Abdella Tounisi is the latest terror sting victim of the FBI. He is a U.S. citizen and a college student. His parents are Jordanian. He's now in federal detention in Chicago charged with providing material support to a terrorist group. The material support he allegedly was willing to provide was personnel -- himself.

He isn't charged with planning anything in the U.S. -- he had decided to go to Syria and fight with jihadists there. The FBI caught him by setting up a pretend Islamic terror recruiting website. He fell for the bait. During their online communications, Tounisi told the FBI he was very physically very small and had no fighting experience. He also told them he had no contacts in Syria. The FBI assured him his size didn't matter, they would train him, and then instructed him on how to make flight arrangements to Turkey. It even sent him a bus ticket for the next leg of his journey. He was arrested at O'Hare after checking in for his flight to Turkey.

According to the Complaint, the FBI monitored his google searches, the You Tube videos he watched, his IP address log-ins, and e-mails. In a later filing, the Government filed a notice it will be relying on FISA evidence. [More...]

From the Complaint:

27. During the investigation, the FBI published a webpage that purported to recruit individuals to travel to Syria and join Jabhat al-Nusrah. In particular, the top portion of the webpage stated, "A Call for Jihad iri Syria," and depicted a photograph of an armed fighter. The website also included a purported Jabhat al-Nusrah training video that depicted individuals wearing masks and fatigues, and engaging in training, such as running with firearms. The website stated, among other things, "come and join your lion brothers of Jabhat Al-Nusra who are fighting under the true banner of Islam, come and join your brothers, the heroes of J abhat Al-Nusra." The website provided an email account as a point of contact, along with instructions:

We are aware of the kuffar's tricks and the behavior of their unjust governments. We also understand the risk of direct contact. Therefore you can contact us via email so that we provide you with the required information which will help you to set off for your jihad in Syria. Before sending us an email, create a new email that you have never used before and send the email to us from a public place.

After these instructions, the website stated:

After you arrive safely our Mujahedeen21 brothers will welcome you and then you will go through ten days Dawra Shar'ia (religious workshop) followed by an intensive course in physical and military training.

29. Also on or about March 28, 2013, Tounisi sent an email to the account listed on the website described above in Par. 27. Tounisi wrote:

My name is Abdullah and I am planning lnshaAllah to join my brothers in Syria in April. InshaAllah I'm going to buy two tickets one from Chicago to Istanbul and another from Istanbul to Gaziantep. I do not know what to do after I arrive in Gaziantep because I do not have any contact information. Can you please help me modify my plan if it needs modification and to prove the authenticity of this e-mail service. Please give me a reply as soon as possible.

30. On or about March 29, 2013, an online undercover FBI employee (OCE) sent Tounisi the following, in part:

Brother, Abdullah, We received your email. Our security procedures demand that you create .. a new email and start communicate through it. We have plans to move. you safely insha'Allah as you requested in your email. The below address email is the only way for you to communicate with us from now on and is created only for you.

32. On or about March 30, 2013, the OCE sent a follow-up email, warning Tounisi that he should not buy a one-way ticket because it would "raise suspicions." The OCE agreed, however, with Tounisi's plan to fly to Istanbul rather than Gaziantep. Later in the communication, the OCE asked Tounisi about his "money supply" and whether he was "able to fight."

33. On or about April 1, 2013, Tounisi responded to the OCE's email, stating, in part:

I knew about buying a roundtrip ticket but how am I supposed to travel from Istanbul to hear Syria without flying? And for how much? .... my money supply is not that high. Some brother are helping me pay for the hijra InshaAllah. Around April 6th I will have about $1396. ... Concerning my fighting skills, to be honest I do not have any. I'm very small (5 feet 6 inches, 120 pounds) physically but I pray to Allah that he makes me successful. Physical strength has no match when it faces Iman. May Allah make us of the Mumeneen.

34. On or about April 2, 2013, the OCE sent Tounisi an email assuring Tounisi that he need not worry about how to travel from Istanbul to the border of Syria. As the OCE explained, "We have moved brothers over here before so we know· exactly what we do from there. All you have to do is tell us what date you will arrive to Istanbul and we will take care of the rest and provide you with details insha'Allah." The OCE concluded the email stating:

We have trust in Allah that you wil~ fight and do your Jihad as a true mu'min .... As you know that Shahada is the ultimate desire of any Mujahid, so with that in mind, brother Abdullah, we ask if you are willing to be a shaheed if the will of the Allah comes upon you to be one?

39. ...The OCE wrote that, after Tounisi sent along his arrival information, the OCE would send Tounisi a bus ticket, which would enable Tounisi to travel "from Istanbul to a village where a brother will be waiting for you."

46. On or about April 10, 2013, Tounisi sent the OCE an email reporting that he had purchased the ticket:

I got the ticket this morning. InshaAllah ta'ala I will arrive in Istanbul Ataturk airport April 20 17:05/5:05 pm. Please explain the details of what to do next inshaAllah.

47. On or about April 11, 2013, the OCE sent Tounisi a response, stating, in part:

By the will of Allah you are closer to be joining your brothers of Jabhat AI Nusra on battlefields in Bilad AI Sham. It is very important that you keep this to yourself and not change the routine of your life. You must not do anything now to make suspicions. Few days before your travel we will email you the bus ticket and other details about your travel. ...

48. On or about April 11, 2013, Tounisi sent the OCE an email with two questions, asking, "Do I have to pay for the bus ticket?

52. On or about April 18, 2013, the OCE sent Tounisi an email with instructions about what Tounisi should do when he arrives in Istanbul. The email included as an attachment a bus ticket from Istanbul to Gaziantep,Turkey, with a scheduled departure of April 21, 2013, at 2:30 p.m. The OCE stated that a ''brother" would be waiting for Tounisi at the bus station in Gaziantep and described what he would be wearing.

54. On or about April 19, 2013, ·at approximately 7:39 p.m., FBI surveillance observed Tounisi at O'Hare International Airport. At approximately 8:29 p.m., surveillance observed Tounisi clear security and sit down in the gate area for his flight. Shortly thereafter, CBP officers approached Tounisi and asked him questions relating to his travel. According to the interviewing officers, Tounisi said, among other things: that he (1) was traveling to Turkey for sightseeing; (2) would be in Turkey for three and one half days; and (3) would not be visiting any other, countries. About five minutes after the interview, Tounisi was arrested by the FBI.

The charge against him:

On or about April 19, 2013, in the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, and elsewhere, ABDELLA AHMAD TOUNISI, defendant herein:

knowingly attempted to provide material support and resources, namely, personnel, to a foreign terrorist organization, namely, al~Qaida in Iraq, designated as a foreign terrorist organization by the United States Department of State on or about October 15, 2004, and amended to include the alias Jabhat al-Nusrah on or about December 11, 2012, knowing that the organization was a designated terrorist organization and that the organization had engaged and was engaging in terrorist activity and terrorism, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2339B(a)(1).

According to a footnote in the Complaint:

According to a release issued by the Department of State on or about December 11, 2012, AQI's leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi (aka, "Abu Du'a"), exercises control of both AQI and Jabhat al-Nusrah. Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi was designated a Specially Designated Global Terrorist by the State Department under Executive Order 13224 in or about October 2011.

While Tounisi had been associated with another would-be extremist who was charged with trying to bomb a nightclub in Chicago, the Complaint says Tounisi refused to participate in that plot. After his friend was arrested, he allegedly decided he would participate in the cause by joining overseas efforts rather than efforts directed at the U.S.

Tounisi was a close friend of an individual named Adel Daoud, who, on or about September 14, 2012, was arrested for attempting to detonate a bomb outside a bar in downtown Chicago. See United States v. Daoud, 12 CR 723. Tounisi and Daoud appeared to share an interest in violent jihad, a topic about which the two exchanged a number of emails, phone calls, and text messages.

The Complaint says Daoud discussed his nightclub plan with Tounisi who provided some ideas but declined to participate.

Ultimately, however, in mid-August 2012, Tounisi apparently decided against participating in the attack, in part because he believed the UC [working with Daoud] was associated with law enforcement. As Daoud explained to the UC, Tounisi sought instead to travel overseas to engage in violent jihad. Daoud opted to carry out the attack without Tounisi and, on September 14, 2012, he was arrested after attempting to detonate a bomb outside a bar in downtown Chicago.

Hours after Daoud's arrest, Tounisi was interviewed by FBI agents and admitted to assisting Daoud in target selection and acknowledged that he had contemplated traveling to Yemen to carry out jihad.

The FBI says Tounisi's interest in violent jihad continued, notwithstanding Daoud's arrest on terrorism charges. The support for this consists of the information the FBI learned from monitoring his internet searches, the You Tube videos he watched (logged onto from his home IP address) and emails.

It was on March 28, 2013, that Tounisi contacted the FBI undercover agent pretending to be a recruiter for violent jihad. By April 18, he had his bus ticket. On April 19, he went to O'Hare to board his flight to Turkey and was arrested.

Tounisi told the FBI in emails he had no contacts in Syria and no idea what to do once he got there.

I am going to buy two tickets one from Chicago to Istanbul and another from Istanbul to Gaziantep. I do not know what to do after I arrive in Gaziantep because I do not have any contact information and had no idea how to get from Turkey to Syria.

Without the bus ticket provided by the FBI, would he ever had gone through with his plan to buy a plane ticket to Turkey?

Wouldn't it have better for the FBI to respond to Tounisi's first contact with an e-mail that said something like:

You have fallen for a trap. We are the FBI. We will now be watching every move you make. We urge you to abandon whatever plans you are contemplating and read the following statute: 18 U.S.C., 18 USC 2339, Providing Material Support to Terrorists. It carries a 15 year prison sentence. It applies to those who would travel abroad to assist organizations the U.S. has declared to be terrorist organizations. Here is a list of those organizations.

It is not too late to change your mind. You are a U.S. citizen in college with a bright future. Please reconsider. Again, we will be watching you closely from this point forward.

< Time for a Gag Order in Boston Bombing Case | DOJ Immunizes Telecoms for Unauthorized Wiretap Assistance >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Kids (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by barbarajmay on Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 08:45:44 PM EST
    If they get much younger, they'll need a daycare at Florence.

    Our tax dollars at work. (4.50 / 2) (#2)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 05:08:38 PM EST
    Gosh, I just feel so much safer, now that there's one less highly impressionable and idealistic 18-year-old boy on the streets. And judging by that picture of Abdella Tounisi you posted, he IS still a boy.

    Turn back the clock 28 years, and had young Tounisi been seduced by the government's siren call to join the Contras and "liberate" Nicaragua, he'd have undoubtedly gotten a medal and been recognized for his courage by President Reagan at the State of the Union message. Well, on second thought, maybe not -- he'd have probably been scapegoated by Oliver North at the Iran-Contra hearings.

    Well, Ronald Reagan was at least right in one respect: "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." Shame on those jackwagons at DOJ who proceeded talked this boy into allegedly committing a felony, rather than simply warn him off a foolhardy venture.

    Here's the thing that bothers me: (4.50 / 2) (#10)
    by Anne on Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 08:06:35 PM EST
    why does it seem like the majority of the "plots" the FBI breaks up are those they had a significant hand in putting together?

    And here's the other thing: all the usual people - Lindsay Graham, Peter King, John McCain - are out there fairly drooling at the chance to make enemy combatants out of the Tsarnaev brothers, no matter that it appears to be more of a homegrown operation - and along comes the FBI to ratchet up a little more fear with one of their look-at-this-brown-skinned-guy-we-nabbed!

    I'm sick of it all.

    All the kid has to do... (4.00 / 1) (#20)
    by unitron on Thu Apr 25, 2013 at 10:11:36 AM EST
    ...is say he was going to use these people to get him to the fighting in Syria and then ditch them and join the rebels the U.S. is currently aiding.

    Interestingly, when AQinI announced it was merging with Jabhat al-Nusra, the guy leading Jabhat al-Nusra, Abu Mohammed al-Jawalani, basically said "Nobody told me about it".

    Christian Science Monitor

    About this sting (3.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Slayersrezo on Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 09:09:38 PM EST
    Unless they could get some evidence that he intended to go over there and kill babies or attack US soldiers or allies, I don't think they should be prosecuting this young man.

    I'm not against all FBI stings against terrorism but they have to be focused on finding the violent or at the minimum those who want to directly help terrorist organizations. In short, if I'm trying to donate $1,000,000 to the "Kill the US Infidels" terrorist society, throw my ass in the joint. If I'm trying to go to some war in bumcrackistan to help my brothers fight other people I regard as infidels but said people aren't civilians, the US, or a direct ally of the US, I feel we should butt out.

    Isn't U.S. on same side as jihadis in Syria? (3.00 / 1) (#21)
    by TycheSD on Fri May 03, 2013 at 03:01:44 PM EST
    It's hard to follow which jihadis the U. S. supports.

    I believe so. (none / 0) (#24)
    by MsAnnaNOLA on Fri May 03, 2013 at 06:34:12 PM EST
    These are the same rebels USA is helping overthrow (3.00 / 1) (#22)
    by MsAnnaNOLA on Fri May 03, 2013 at 03:49:42 PM EST
    The Syran Government. Are these the very same "rebels" that pledged allegiance to Al-quaeda and it turns out the EU just lifted the oil embargo in order to help. Let me guess who put them up to that?

    EU Lifts Oil Embargo on Syria - Buys Directly from Al Qaeda


    please learn to put your links in html (none / 0) (#28)
    by Jeralyn on Sat May 04, 2013 at 03:44:43 AM EST
    format if you want to cite the source. If it's not worth your time, then just give us the name of the publications and the article number and date. Thanks.

    Wow (none / 0) (#1)
    by TeresaInPa on Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 05:03:24 PM EST
    I have very mixed feelings about this.  Perhaps the FBI feel that they gave him enough rope to hang himself and enough time to chose differently.  I feel ambivalent on whether this is entrapment.
    Mostly I just wonder why this kid is so weak minded and has so little regard for the life of innocents that he would join a group whose goal is to kill them to score points in a war of demoralization.

    The key operative word in your post ... (none / 0) (#3)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 05:13:52 PM EST
    ... is the seventh one in your second paragraph -- "kid."

    I'm sorry, but this is outrageous. 18-year-old boys are fully capable of doing stupid things all on their own. They certainly don't need to be egged on by adults in nominal positions of authority, and that's exactly what happened here.



    The FBI specializes in finding teenagers (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by caseyOR on Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 07:05:02 PM EST
    online who seem attracted to the idea of fighting jihad and then entrapping them by providing everything they need to build a bomb or head overseas. That seems to be the way the FBI gets most of its terrorism arrests.

    I have to wonder how many of these kids could be turned away from jihadist activities and guided toward a productive life of the FBI wasn't so hellbent on creating terrorists that the Bureau can then arrest.


    kind of like nipping it in the bud (none / 0) (#9)
    by TeresaInPa on Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 07:21:31 PM EST
    before a crime is actually committed and the person is in controlled circumstances?  

    To me its More like (none / 0) (#25)
    by gbrbsb on Fri May 03, 2013 at 10:59:33 PM EST
    nurturing and fertilising "it" first and then then if it starts to grow "nipping it in the bud"!

    Stop, stop, stop (none / 0) (#4)
    by jbindc on Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 05:21:47 PM EST
    We cannot continue to have discussions where,in the case of terrorism, or crime, an 18 year old is "just a kid", but in the cases of buying / drinking alcohol, choosing to take drugs, have sex, or get an abortion, they are "adults under the law who should be free to make their own choices."

    You can't have it both ways.


    What we can't guarantee is that when (4.50 / 2) (#11)
    by Anne on Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 08:36:25 PM EST
    someone reaches the arbitrary age at which we've declared certain activities are legal, that they are magically capable and mature, and have the decision-making and critical-thinking skills needed to responsibly engage in these activities.

    But what is our choice?  Make everyone take a test and carry a card that says they passed and are authorized to vote, drink, drive, etc.?  Yeah, that wouldn't be cumbersome or anything, would it?  And I don't even want to think of the exponential growth in law enforcement activity it would generate.

    No one's saying that 18 yr olds have no responsibility; what they are saying is that many of them are still so impressionable, their psyches so malleable, that they can easily be led to do things that just don't make sense.

    I feel like the FBI has a demonstrated pattern of finding young people who are likely to be easily manipulated; when you think about the vast amount of information that can be collected about all of us, it isn't unreasonable to think these people are targeted specifically because of their backgrounds, family history, and so on.  That kind of head game, perpetrated by law enforcement, is wrong. Wrong.  And it seems to be their go-to strategy.

    You seem to live in a very black-and-white world, where if something isn't right, it's wrong, and there's no room for gray, for extenuating circumstances, for another side to the story.  I think that's kind of a shame.


    No (3.00 / 1) (#17)
    by jbindc on Thu Apr 25, 2013 at 07:46:10 AM EST
    You and Donald are the ones who see black and white - if someone is 18 (or, more often, 17 years and 364 days) and commits a crime or is accused of a crime, then out comes the "teenagers brains aren't developed, so they shouldn't be held to the same standard as adults."  Yet, if it's something you agree with (marriage, sex, abortion, enter contracts, etc.), then, in your view, they are adults and should be allowed to be free to make their own choices. That's pretty black and white right there.

    You seem to live in a very black-and-white world, where if something isn't right, it's wrong, and there's no room for gray, for extenuating circumstances, for another side to the story.

    Since I never, ever said anything about extenuating circumstances in every case, this is a completely strawman argument, but we'll pass on that. The sentiment and comment I was responding to was comment:

    I'm sorry, but this is outrageous. 18-year-old boys are fully capable of doing stupid things all on their own. They certainly don't need to be egged on by adults in nominal positions of authority, and that's exactly what happened here.

    He makes a definitive statement - that THIS instance is outrageous.  How does he know? How do you know? I don't know if this 18 year old is guilty of anything, but you two have already proclaimed that 1) the actions of the FBI were outrageous and 2) if this 18 year old did engage in these activities, he must have been led astray by the big, bad cops, because he is not fully developed and couldn't possibly know any better.

    The fact that you and Donald don't think that  teenagers are all not developed or responsible enough to know right from wrong is completely insulting to teenagers everywhere.


    No, jb - I don't think I have ever (4.00 / 2) (#19)
    by Anne on Thu Apr 25, 2013 at 09:22:58 AM EST
    made the kinds of blanket statements you've attributed to me; for one thing, I don't happen to believe that being a teenager, or being 18, provides an automatic defense to the commission of a crime.  I think these things have to be looked at on a case-by-case basis, with all the facts and circumstances taken into consideration - I don't get how that is wrong.

    That being said, there is a lot of material out there on brain development, specifically the brain development of teenagers; I'd put that in the category of "things to be taken into consideration," not as - as you have accused me of - a reason why the standards have to be different for young people.  

    Although they are different, aren't they? It seems that the judicial system makes those distinctions, and in some cases, it makes them in the other direction, usually on the basis of the kind of crime committed.  How many times have you seen instances where children as young as 13 or 14 are taken out of juvenile jurisdiction and charged as adults?  Does that happen because these children are exceptionally mature or does it happen because of the severity of the crimes they are alleged to have committed?  Do you agree with that - that 13 yr olds should stand on equal footing with adults?

    And contrary to your other assertion, that

    if it's something you agree with (marriage, sex, abortion, enter contracts, etc.), then, in your view, they are adults and should be allowed to be free to make their own choices
    where did you come up with that one?  I think there are some 18 yr olds who are very capable of handling the responsibilities of marriage, sex, abortion, contracts - but I think there are also a great many who aren't.  I've never believed that just because it is legal for one to do something, that one should actually do it.  

    I can't speak for Donald, but as I read the comment you so objected to, "outrageous" appears to have been said in reaction to Teresa's comment, not specifically about what the FBI may have done.  I made no specific judgments on this particular case - what I have "proclaimed" is that the FBI seems to have developed a pattern of recruiting young men for the purpose of then foiling terrorist plots that the FBI has played a significant role in creating.  And that, it seems to me, is wrong.  

    And this:  

    The fact that you and Donald don't think that  teenagers are all not developed or responsible enough to know right from wrong is completely insulting to teenagers everywhere.

    Is not a fact at all, but a product of your imagination.  I've never said this, not in my comments in this thread, or ever; that's a generalization that even people who don't have children would find hard to make, so I don't know why you think it makes sense to ascribe it to me.


    Targeting (none / 0) (#23)
    by MsAnnaNOLA on Fri May 03, 2013 at 06:32:02 PM EST
    Since I am not aware of how to use tiny links... Search this article from usnews and world report to get a taste of how much info the govt has on you.

    What Does the IRS Know About You?

    Tis kind of info in a big database would be very helpful to target people for just such a sting.


    "Stop, stop, stop"? (3.75 / 4) (#5)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 06:33:52 PM EST
    Do you have any kids who are teenagers, jb? I do. My youngest is still 18, and while I'm proud of her and often call her a young lady, she is still a teenager and more often than not acts like one. She is most definitely not an adult in the traditional sense that you and I and others here are.

    18-year-olds were declared adults for legal purposes in the 1970s with merely the passage of legislation and the stroke of a pen. That said, the legal definition of adulthood doesn't necessarily make it so in real life.

    For one thing, the frontal lobes and pre-frontal cortex of an 18-year-old's brain -- where most of its advanced cognitive functions take place -- are seldom fully developed, and studies have found that the brain only reaches full maturity in one's early twenties.

    Thus, an 18-year-old is generally much less capable than a fully mature adult to fully prioritize thoughts, imagine or think in the abstract, anticipate consequences, engage in long-term planning, and control his or her emotional impulses.

    Further, and this is something I've said here several times before, teens have not yet mastered the adult art of situational rationalization, and are far morely likely to take things literally and act on the spur of the moment than are mature adults.

    "[Teenagers] frequently know the difference between right and wrong and are competent to stand trial. Because of their impairments, however, by definition they have diminished capacities to understand and process mistakes and learn from experience, to engage in logical reasoning, to control impulses, and to understand the reactions of others ... . Their deficiencies do not warrant an exemption from criminal sanctions, but they do diminish their personal culpability."
     -- Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304, 318, 122 S.Ct. 2242, 2250 (2002)

    You're absolutely right -- we can't have it both ways. But I would argue vifgorously that WE as mature adults, and not 18-year-olds, are the ones who are seeking to invoke a double standard.

    After all, it was adults, and not teenagers, who first made the decision nearly forty years ago to declare 18 the age of majority for legal purposes.

    It is adults, and not teenagers, who are in control in society and call its shots. It is adults who are inclined to abrogate and shirk their responsibilities for at-risk youth, once those youth turn 18. You don't see at-risk teens advocating in our courts and legislatures that they should be thrown out onto the street once they're 18 years old because it costs too much to feed, care and train them.

    It is adults, and not teenagers, who've made the conscious decision in Congress and our state legislatures that some children are worth more than others by sole virtue of their socio-economic circumstances, their race or ethnicity, or their sexual orientation -- which adults will generally and vociferously deny takes place, but which has nevertheless been reflected repeatedly in our own lawmaking.

    And it is adults who will shirk their responsibilities as parents, and fail to train and prepare their own children adequately for life when they're out on their own. Teenagers are not responsible for the circumstances of their own upbringing.

    So, if anyone should stop -- well, you go first.



    Historical revisionism, Donald? (none / 0) (#14)
    by Slayersrezo on Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 09:01:57 PM EST
    Last I heard in the vast majority of cases even in the past in this country , 18 was still the "age of majority". No, 18 year olds couldn't vote until 1971 but they could be drafted in 1861, they could marry, sign contracts, and run their own lives in 1791.

    18 has long been in this country considered 'old enough' for the vast majority of anything an adult might want to do. Resting your argument on the draft is dishonest, esp since the legal DRINKING age has been raised to 21 and the fact that drinking is illegal is currently screwing up campuses all over this country because the campus authorities are forced to either turn a blind eye or turn to the law, instead of monitoring this drinking.

    In short, our laws concerning a legal age of majority have long been a bit schizophreniac, but 18 has almost always fallen on the "adult" side of things.


    sigh (none / 0) (#15)
    by Slayersrezo on Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 09:03:42 PM EST
    I meant "resting your argument on the VOTE"

    agreed (none / 0) (#8)
    by TeresaInPa on Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 07:13:38 PM EST
    we have an age of majority and everyone knows what it is.  We do make exceptions for certain circumstances which is humane.  Otherwise there is a point at which we have to let people know they are expected to be adults.  It is really kind of counter productive let everyone think there is an exception to every rule, a do-over for every stupid choice.

    yes (none / 0) (#6)
    by TeresaInPa on Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 06:43:50 PM EST
    but I think of anyone my son's age or younger is a kid and he is currently 32. So we do have an age where we expect people to take responsibility for their choices. I don't know about you but I wouldn't feel better about this if he were 30, it still feels like a pretend crime.  He didn't actually do anything yet.  

    Hold on... something seems wrong here! (none / 0) (#26)
    by gbrbsb on Fri May 03, 2013 at 11:11:42 PM EST
    I thought we too were supporting the Syrian opposition, and from yesterday on the brink of sending arms to them. An opposition we now know includes several militant Jihadi groups including one linking itself to Al-Qaida! Oh well, I suppose we will just have to just accept we are "weak minded" with little "regard for the life of innocents..." too.

    I started a new thread of syria, (none / 0) (#27)
    by Jeralyn on Sat May 04, 2013 at 03:35:32 AM EST
    can you put these commennts there, so this stays on the case I've written about? thanks

    So sorry, am new so still trying to find my way. (none / 0) (#29)
    by gbrbsb on Sat May 04, 2013 at 05:48:46 AM EST
    I am not sure yet how to find the "new" Syria thread nor how to re-post as my comment was a reply to someone else's & would lose meaning if posted without the original to which it replied. Are they any instructions for here as I only have ever used WP?

    our comment rules (none / 0) (#30)
    by Jeralyn on Sun May 05, 2013 at 01:26:20 AM EST
    are here. I think you just need to keep in mind that comments are supposed to be on the same topic as the thread. If you want to discuss something else, and don't see a thread for it, feel free to post it in an "open thread." We have one almost every day.

    The Syria thread is here.

    No need to apologize. Welcome.


    Thanks for links and re-read rules. Now I (none / 0) (#31)
    by gbrbsb on Tue May 07, 2013 at 07:20:17 AM EST
    understand what you meant about posting it on the Syria thread, but there seems to be a misunderstanding as my comment was not about Syria but on the thread's topic, i.e. Abdella Tounisi's arrest, being my sarcastic reply to TeresaInPa´s comment there (Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 05:03:24 PM EST) where they said:

    "Mostly I just wonder why this kid is so weak minded and has so little regard for the life of innocents..."

    Words I reflected in mine, but for clarity I realise now I should have referred to their comment directly as my reply nested so far down thread it lost track and/or sense with the original.


    Nobody seems surprised at the surveillance? (none / 0) (#18)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Apr 25, 2013 at 08:31:48 AM EST
    "According to the Complaint, the FBI monitored his google searches, the You Tube videos he watched, his IP address log-ins, and e-mails."