So many possibilities . . . for courts (Canada terror setup?)

Another is that this is a reprise of the infamous 2003 Project Thread fiasco, in which RCMP and immigration officials accused 23 Muslims of terrorism only to acknowledge later that at most the men were guilty of minor immigration fraud.

Still another possibility is that this may turn out to be Canada's version of the 2004 Virginia "paintball" trial, in which one man was sentenced to life and another got 85 years.

In that controversial case (even the presiding judge complained the outcome was unfair), nine Muslim men were convicted of participating in terrorist training — the main evidence being that they had played paintball in the woods outside Washington
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&pubid=968163964505&cid=1149371435812&call_page=TS_TerrorArrests&call_pageid=1149329604487&call_pagepath=Special/TerrorArrests

No real evidence

That's got to be the reason for the fertilizer,right?


Faheem Bukhari, a member of the centre, said Jamal had radical views and tried to teach those views to others, including some of those charged.

"These youth were very fun-loving guys, soccer-loving guys, and then all of sudden they were not associating with guys they used to," said Bukhari.

"People around him knew he was very extreme," continued Bukhari, adding Jamal once told "the audience that the Canadian Forces were going to Afghanistan to rape women."

http://www.mississauganews.com/mi/news/story/3533881p-4083443c.html

All that's known for certain , apparently, is that they were set up to buy 3 tons of ammonium nitrate. At least presumably there is some evidence of that which is more than can be said for last weeks farce in the UK.

If this were a drug bust, we would see pictures of piles of drugs actually from the arrests. In this case we see no real evidence and are told that they were planning to buy fertiliser.
The US Republicans are already using this case to bash the internet, immigration and to OK spying on citizens. Enough said!

If this were a drug bust, we would see pictures of piles of drugs actually from the arrests. In this case we see no real evidence and are told that they were planning to buy fertiliser.

So? What's the question?

They were planning to buy fertilizer -- and they were PREVENTED from doing that, according to the Cdn police/intelligence services.

They were planning to blow something up -- and, one might expect, kill a few people -- if they bought the fertilizer. There being no reason to think that after going to all the bother and expense of buying the fertilizer they would not have carried out that plan, one might say that they were PREVENTED from killing a few people.

What's the problem?

In your drug bust scenario, there are actual drugs involved. Not just a plan to buy drugs. But if the suspects in such a case had been dealing with police masquerading as drug dealers, there would have been no drugs. There could still have been a bust, of people attempting to buy large quantities of drugs, still an offence.

In this case, one might say that the police were masquerading as fertilizer dealers -- once the suspects had already devised and begun to act on their plan to acquire the fertilizer. The police prevented them from getting hold of the fertilizer. Why would the police bring a truck full of fertilizer to a news conference and say "see, this is what they might have got hold of if we hadn't stepped in"?

In the drug bust scenario, the fact that a few suspects didn't get their hands on large amounts of drugs is not really newsworthy.

In the fertilizer bomb scenario, the fact that the suspects didn't get their hands on large amounts of ammonium nitrate -- with which they planned to blow things up and kill people -- might actually be seen as somewhat newsworthy.

All that's known for certain , apparently, is that they were set up to buy 3 tons of ammonium nitrate.

That is NOT KNOWN FOR CERTAIN. It isn't known AT ALL.

Will no one read anything before opening their mouth to chat about it??

The operation has been referred to as a "sting". Look it up.

In this case, it apparently meant intervening in a transaction INITIATED BY THE SUSPECTS -- NOT at the behest or invitation or encouragement of any police / intelligence service -- to ensure that the purchase of ammonium nitrate was NOT completed as THEY planned.

I would not say that this is known "for sure", but it is how the thing looks at present.

The plan to purchase ammonium nitrate and use it to make an explosive device and use the explosive device to attack public buildings was NOT devised by the Cdn police/intelligence services, and they did not "set up" the suspects to carry it out. The plan was -- according to them -- devised by the suspects, who then set about carrying it out, all on their own initiative.

The police/intelligence services may not be telling the truth; I wouldn't know. But I sure don't have any good reason to think they're lying at present.

At least presumably there is some evidence of that

There does indeed appear to be. So what, I have to keep asking myself, is anyone's problem with this whole operation?

If the investigation had not occurred and the transaction not been thwarted, there is no reason to think that the suspects would NOT have carried out their plan -- and then there would quite possibly have been a whole lot of dead people in Canada. Why is it not a good thing that a plan to do this was discovered and thwarted?

:sarcasm:

These nuts were planning on murdering thousands of innocents.

**** off.

And your own comment -- "no real evidence" -- means what, exactly? Looks like an allegation of fact ... and yet ... I see no facts.

No real evidence that YOU know about? Who cares, exactly?