Question regarding the bombers and their "radicalization": Is there much difference between...

[Poll_Blind]

...people who are groomed for faux terrorist acts by law enforcement and then subsequently arrested after trying to perpetrate them, and those who fixate on jihadist material available on the web and self-"radicalize" into terrorists on their own in regards to how "real" an affiliation with a terror group they have?

Does that make sense?

What're your thoughts?

Onehandle posted an interesting thread where he believed the bombers were closer to the Columbine killers than what we might think of as a stereotypical "jihadist" terrorist. And, with at least what I know now, I basically agree.

My question boils down to something like "If you pretend to be al-Qaeda, act like al-Qaeda, are you al-Qaeda?"



In a legal sense, I think one probably is, because in those acts (presumably acts of terror or mass murder) you are providing "material support" for those groups. But I'm unsure.

PB

[gateley]

1. That's what I initially thought until the stories of the elder brother's growing involvement and

move toward more extremist beliefs.

Could be a combo of both?

[nadinbrzezinski]

2. I would like to make two points

1.- Our noise machine speaks of external sources of radicalization...see these two, or others.

2.- our media and pols systematically ignore internal sources of radicalization.

I will leave it a that.

[elleng]

3. 'people who are groomed for faux terrorist acts by law enforcement,'

as in enttrapment, vs. fixate and self-radicalize?

'Difference' legally would be perp's intention.

And as al queda, as I understand, is a loose 'group,' almost not a group, I think the term is losing its usefulness. One's personal intentions are most important.