To be clear, “patsy” is too harsh a term for what I meant. There is value in diverting the attention of people intending to do harm from real plots to fake ones invented by the FBI. However, that is not “thwarting an attack”, and in my opinion does not justify excessive surveillance.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/ex-marines-isis-inspired-...

You would ask the question "How far would he have gotten if an FBI agent hadn't got involved?" There seems to be a pattern of "idiot makes vague threats on Twitter" => "FBI agent encourages him" => "FBI waits and eventually arrests, plot thwarted." in a lot of these stories, which seems to be the basis for your categorical assertion that

> every terrorism prosecution that involved a foiled plot in the past ten years or so has involved the FBI convincing some helpless, directionless loser to do a bad thing and then arresting said loser and claiming victory against Al-Qaeda

So I can see why you would think Jameson fits the pattern.

How about this guy?

https://edition.cnn.com/2015/09/10/us/9-11-memorial-bomb-plo...

> Australi Witness urged the FBI source to put nails, glass and metal into the bomb, according to the FBI-authored complaint. He instructed the FBI source "to dip the screws and other shrapnel in rat poison in order to inflict more casualties," the complaint states.

Doesn't sound too helpless to me.