The problem with that is that it immediately removes his agency. An automatic assumption that this bad actor was not doing so of his free will. And it gets trotted out for every happening despite rarely ever being correct. People want explanations where someone is always in control. It is easier to imagine a puppetmaster than just some kook lone wolf.
I get that perspective as I used to subscribe to it, but let's unpack this a bit, is it possible for there to be a place somewhere between "full agency" and "no agency", let's call it "compromised agency"?
I see it as very possible to influence someone in a mental state so broken that stuff like this sounds like a good idea. Maybe this takes the form of suggestions, maybe this takes the form of conversations which trend towards more radical ideas rather than less. And the internet makes all of this far too easy when brokebrains congregate on places like discord, not realizing of course that they are being watched.
This is what I'm trying to get at by "compromised agency", sure they did the action, but how much of it was their idea? Psyops psychos know better than any of us just how easy to manipulate people can be if given the correct circumstances and access to these individuals has only gotten easier for a suit in a cube.
Also there are themes in cases where the FBI swoops in at the last minute and they all involve a long period of the subject of the sting being in plenty of contact with FBI assets, and it seems impossible to know just how much influence a glowy agency can have over a person until someone tries.
And then if something goes wrong, like McVeigh, a bunch of assets magically disappear off the face of the earth.
Clearly you disagree generally which is fine, but I did want to push back slightly on the "no agency" part specifically.
