Ed George Soros and others targetted by Terrorist

[The Big Dog]

In your earlier post, you claimed with absolute certainty: "...there was no way this ******* were going to blow up on their own."

For proof of that, you pointed to an article which contained statements like "...not immediately clear" and "examining the possibility" (that the devices were fake). Just so you know, things like "examining the possibility" does not mean "We have proof that...". So you were making assertions that were not even fully supported by your own article. To add to that, another poster posted a reference that went into more details, indicating that yes, indeed the devices could very well have exploded on their own.

And I was correct! They did not blow up on their own. Golly wonder why I was so certain.

And if the New York Times is suggesting that the devices might be fake, you can take it to the bank they were fake.

 

[Belz...]

Fake Indians, fake Honduran caravan, fake news, fake blue wave, and now fake mail bombs.

The only thing real about the Dimms is their desperation.

Oh, good to know Trump's caravan is fake.

But are you saying that the bombs were sent by Democrats?

 

[lomiller]

If I wanted to send a fake pipe bomb, I would fill the pipe with sand instead of actual explosive material and glass shards.

You may want to consider using an actual explosive if you want it to trigger those protocols. It would be a waste of time to try to build a timer and detonator though. If you did have an actual explosive, a timer and a detonator I very much doubt any court would be willing to believe you if you told them “it wasn’t intended to explode.”

 

[crescent]

And if the New York Times is suggesting that the devices might be fake, you can take it to the bank they were fake.

The NY Times is not suggesting that they might be fake. They are quoting in investigator who lists that as one of many possibilities.

Here's the quote from the article:

One law enforcement official said investigators were examining the possibility that they were hoax devices that were constructed to look like bombs but would not have exploded.

 

[lomiller]

And I was correct! They did not blow up on their own.

Um no, you were not right. Your arguments are non-sequitur. Neither of your arguments (“they could not explode”, “they were not intended to explode”) follow logically from the fact that they did not explode.

 

[autumn1971]

In your earlier post, you claimed with absolute certainty: "...there was no way this ******* were going to blow up on their own."

For proof of that, you pointed to an article which contained statements like "...not immediately clear" and "examining the possibility" (that the devices were fake). Just so you know, things like "examining the possibility" does not mean "We have proof that...". So you were making assertions that were not even fully supported by your own article. To add to that, another poster posted a reference that went into more details, indicating that yes, indeed the devices could very well have exploded on their own.

I admire your attempts to give the benefit of the doubt to Trump worshippers, but that bag of benefit was emptied long ago.

Nothing that reflects less than glowingly on Dear Leader and everything He touches can ever be assimilated by the flaming mob of His fawning acolytes.

 

[The Big Dog]

Um no, you were not right. Your arguments are non-sequitur. Neither of your arguments (“they could not explode”, “they were not intended to explode”) follow logically from the fact that they did not explode.

Lets hear from another expert:

Bomb Disposal Expert Claims Mail Bombs Are an ‘Obvious Hoax’

 

[JoeMorgue]

People, this is why we should have fought against pedantics harder back when it was just annoying and not waiting until it ushered in a new and wonderful "Post-Truth" era.

Ya'll wanted to be all "Well technically speaking..." and "we need to be precise" about everything for so bloody long well now we get to deal with "Is a bomb that doesn't explode really a bomb?" special pleading.

 

[Donal]

I went to go on a shooting spree, but after my first shot missed my gun jammed, so no crime right?

I thought I had HIV so I tried to bite someone I didn't like and infect them, but it turned out I didn't have HIV, so no crime right?

I went to stab somebody, but the knife was so rusty and dull from misuse that it broke on the guy's jacket, so no crime, right?

You must get the same legal advise

Attempted murder!" Now, honestly, what is that? Do they give a Nobel Prize for attempted chemistry? Do they?

 

[BobTheCoward]

People, this is why we should have fought against pedantics harder back when it was just annoying and not waiting until it ushered in a new and wonderful "Post-Truth" era.

Ya'll wanted to be all "Well technically speaking..." and "we need to be precise" about everything for so bloody long well now we get to deal with "Is a bomb that doesn't explode really a bomb?" special pleading.

You mean get to enjoy the most interesting and important part of this.

 

[theprestige]

You may want to consider using an actual explosive if you want it to trigger those protocols. It would be a waste of time to try to build a timer and detonator though. If you did have an actual explosive, a timer and a detonator I very much doubt any court would be willing to believe you if you told them “it wasn’t intended to explode.”

I think if you showed that the timer, detonator, and explosive were not connected, any sensible jury would conclude that they weren't intended to explode.

 

[Segnosaur]

In your earlier post, you claimed with absolute certainty: "...there was no way this ******* were going to blow up on their own."

For proof of that, you pointed to an article which contained statements like "...not immediately clear" and "examining the possibility"

And I was correct! They did not blow up on their own.

The fact that they did not blow up on their own does not mean that they COULD NOT have (as you insinuated). The bomb maker used a timer; he may simply have set the time to explode too far in the future.

Nor does it mean that the bomb maker didn't INTEND for them to explode (but just was incompetent in making the bombs). As another poster pointed out... if all he wanted to do was perpetrate a hoax, he could have filled his bombs with something inert, like sand, as opposed to an actual explosive.

Golly wonder why I was so certain.

Because you happen to love you a racist president and as such you are willing to contort and misquote others in your support of said racist president?

And if the New York Times is suggesting that the devices might be fake, you can take it to the bank they were fake.

Why? The times never claimed with any certainty that they were definitely fake. They quoted an investigator who said it was a possibility. In case you don't understand... "possibility" actually has a different meaning than the word "certainty". When you have a possibility, it means that that possibility could also be completely wrong.

 

[The Big Dog]

People, this is why we should have fought against pedantics harder back when it was just annoying and not waiting until it ushered in a new and wonderful "Post-Truth" era.

Ya'll wanted to be all "Well technically speaking..." and "we need to be precise" about everything for so bloody long well now we get to deal with "Is a bomb that doesn't explode really a bomb?" special pleading.

Sigh, more gross misrepresentation of the actual position, which is that it appears that the devices were not only intended not to go off, but could not.

Please just deal with what people say, I think you might find that our positions are not that far off.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

And if the New York Times is suggesting that the devices might be fake, you can take it to the bank they were fake.

Noted for posterity - The Big Dog says that anything even suggested by the New York Times can be taken as true.

 

[autumn1971]

Sigh, more gross misrepresentation of the actual position, which is that it appears that the devices were not only intended not to go off, but could not.

Please just deal with what people say, I think you might find that our positions are not that far off.

Assertions based on Twitter evidence that addresses zero of the facts. Nice

 

[theprestige]

Oh, good to know Trump's caravan is fake.

The caravan is real enough. It's just not intended to explode.

 

[The Big Dog]

Noted for posterity - The Big Dog says that anything even suggested by the New York Times can be taken as true.

"Noted for posterity - The Big Dog says that anything even suggested by the New York Times that is inimical to the interests of the liberal mob can be taken as true."

otherwise known as a statement against interest.

fixed that for you!

 

[lomiller]

Lets hear from another expert:

Bomb Disposal Expert Claims Mail Bombs Are an ‘Obvious Hoax’

Anonymous would be “experts” on twitter don’t carry any weight with me. If you have an actual argument WHY they “a hoax” then by all means take the time to write it out and take ownership of the claim. Your failure to do so only means you either don't understand the argument they are making or you don't really believe the argument they are making.

 

[The Big Dog]

Assertions based on Twitter evidence that addresses zero of the facts. Nice

I literally laughed. the irony of that statement tickled my funny bone given the complete lack of any attempt whatsoever to even mention one thing that was said.

He is a bomb control expert and discussed the factual images that were broadcast.

gain saying ain't gonna do it anymore. Anything substantive to add?

 

[Foolmewunz]

The caravan is real enough. It's just not intended to explode.

Well, not before Nov. 6th, at any rate. Fox and Trump News will be down there covering "reports of disturbances" with news choppers on the sixth, beaming coverage to poll watchers (sic).