Ed George Soros and others targetted by Terrorist

[phunk]

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

"Did not" and "could not" don't mean the same thing. A bomb not going off doesn't mean it isn't a bomb.

 

[phunk]

Lets hear from another expert:

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

His argument is weak. He assumes competence in the bomb maker.

 

[The Big Dog]

Hopefully the FBI will act as quickly as they did with this recent event!

Federal authorities secured an indictment on Thursday against a man accused of sending threatening letters to top US officials, including a ricin-related threat to President Donald Trump.
The Justice Department announced the indictment of seven counts against William Clyde Allen and said the indictment includes an allegation that Allen "knowingly threatened to use a biological agent and toxin, specifically ricin, as a weapon."

 

[Foolmewunz]

"Anonymous," literally the very first word in the post was absolutely wrong. That is remarkable!

His name is Tom Sauer, say his name.

List his credentials. From his c.v. I'm going to posit that he's never seen a pipe bomb in his life and is using his two years in the Navy to build up cred for peeps like you who will believe anything.

Have you stopped to take a breath to think about the topic you're nitpicking a defense about? I almost want it to be a DNC false flag operation to watch you do your patented partisan spinorama move and start screaming for his/her head!

"Well, if it couldn't go off then it couldn't be attempted murder!" I'm cool with that. Murderers walk. Terrorists are left to rot under the jail.

 

[Belz...]

A bomb not going off doesn't mean it isn't a bomb.

According to Bob, it does.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

My prediction is that this and similar replies will be ignored. The wingnuts will push the narrative that the bombs were harmless, pointing to the National Review article. They rely on the fact that most people won't check the original AP quote. In online discussions they can stall any line of argument with this disinformation, making centrists want for everyone to "agree to disagree".

It's an example of a big lie. Lying even after being confronted with the evidence.

Liars lie. It’s their stup-erpower.

 

[lomiller]

You called him anonymous....

Correct. We know nothing about who he really is or what expertise he really has. The only thing we do know is that whoever they are they have no special access to the details of this case.

I have explained my position repeatedly with supporting citations to third party sources.

False. You have yet to post a single valid argument in favor of your assertions. Again links to what someone else wrote on twitter are not arguments. They could be used as (poor) support for an argument, but they are not arguments in their own right and hold no value because the person writing them isn’t here to respond.

 

[luchog]

You think this is evidence for your claim?

The President of the United States is literally saying that Mainstream Media is Fake News. That's literally what he's claiming right there. You should not believe what the media (mainstream media, at least) say.

Right. Totally responsible.

Here's a link to an actual image of Trump's tweet: After playing nice for one afternoon, Trump wakes to blame the media for bombings

He refers to "Mainstream Media" twice in the tweet, and is explicitly blaming this on "Anger" caused by "Mainstream Media". He has all-but-congratulated the bomber for his attempted murder, gone back to riling up his groupies, and continues to attack the very people who were the targets of the bombings.

Trump called for unity in the wake of bomb attempts — then blamed the media

It's quite clear that he's disappointed that they failed, and has no intention of backing off his rhetoric in light of this incident.

 

[theprestige]

This doesn’t tell us whether they were connected when the bomb was mailed, so no it doesn’t “do the trick”

If you were sitting on a jury, and the state was bringing a charge of attempted murder, and the bomb maker testified that they never connected the components, and the recipient testified that they had not tampered with the device, and the technical expert testified that the components were not connected when they examined the device, and you heard the same testimony about the other seven devices... You would still find the defendant guilty of attempted murder?

 

[theprestige]

"Did not" and "could not" don't mean the same thing. A bomb not going off doesn't mean it isn't a bomb.

It does, however, mean that it might not be a bomb.

 

[gregthehammer]

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

This.

 

[Darat]

Do we seriously have people arguing that these bombs "don't count" because they didn't go off?

Seriously?

I mean I know it is true, I can see people literally arguing that, but...

I know it's one of those things that keeps reseting your brain, you think it just can't be true but it's there in black and white...

 

[The Big Dog]

Correct. We know nothing about who he really is or what expertise he really has. The only thing we do know is that whoever they are they have no special access to the details of this case.


False. You have yet to post a single valid argument in favor of your assertions. Again links to what someone else wrote on twitter are not arguments. They could be used as (poor) support for an argument, but they are not arguments in their own right and hold no value because the person writing them isn’t here to respond.

Uh huh, we have bizarro world definition of "anonymous."

Followed up with the assertion that stating your argument and supporting it with external sources simply will not do! Bizarro argument world.

Hi I have explained my position and supported it. Please excuse me if I do not further dally with a person that is not above redefining the word "anonymous' where it suits his pleasure.

 

[Imhotep]

If you were sitting on a jury, and the state was bringing a charge of attempted murder, and the bomb maker testified that they never connected the components, and the recipient testified that they had not tampered with the device, and the technical expert testified that the components were not connected when they examined the device, and you heard the same testimony about the other seven devices... You would still find the defendant guilty of attempted murder?

If they at any time intended to connect the components, yes. That would be hard to determine though.

 

[The Big Dog]

I know it's one of those things that keeps reseting your brain, you think it just can't be true but it's there in black and white...

Really? Where did someone argue that? i asked your correspondent before, and did not get a response.

 

[Segnosaur]

You called him anonymous....

Correct. We know nothing about who he really is or what expertise he really has. The only thing we do know is that whoever they are they have no special access to the details of this case.

Now that's not fair. We know more than that.

For example, we know this particular 'expert' is a fan of Trump and his policies. (He has tweeted support for a border wall, for example). He also tweeted a picture of Ginsberg on the supreme court with Trump looking at his watch with the caption 'soon', indicating he is hoping for the death of another individual. He may also be a fan of conspiracy theories.

And this is the person that TBD considers an 'expert'.

 

[CORed]

Lets hear from another expert:

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

Sumarry. Some guy on twitter who claims he is a "former bomb disposal officer" (on the internet, nobody knows you're a dog), says the bombs are obviously fake because of the way they're put together. He might be right, but at this point, we have no evidence that he actually knows his ass from a hole in the ground.

Of course, I think it needs to be pointed out, if only for the sake of TBD, that fake bomb does not necessarily mean it's a "false flag" to make Trump supporters look bad, in spite of all the idiot comments on the leaked twitter thread.

 

[BobTheCoward]

"Did not" and "could not" don't mean the same thing. A bomb not going off doesn't mean it isn't a bomb.

Not "A" bomb. 8 bombs. If you make 8 bombs, and not one is ever a successful bomb, you just made 8 failed prototypes on your way to a bomb.

 

[Toontown]

I'm leaning towards the conclusion that the devices weren't intended to explode.

I have been trying to explain that too.

Humane terrorism? How quaint.

I'm leaning toward the conclusion that the question of functionality is scant defense for the perp(s). The construction and distribution of the devices, functional or not, was still an act of terrorism. When caught and convicted, the perp(s) will do life.

The implication (and, in your cases, hope) of a false flag operation would be obvious if it is determined that the devices were all duds. However, the mere fact that the bombs did not detonate is, of itself, not meaningful, given that they have, so far, all been intercepted and disposed of by bomb squads who would be unlikely to handle them in such a manner as to accidentally detonate them.

So, don't get your hopes up too much, boys. You're nowhere near out of the woods yet.

 

[The Big Dog]

Now that's not fair. We know more than that.

For example, we know this particular 'expert' is a fan of Trump and his policies. (He has tweeted support for a border wall, for example). He also tweeted a picture of Ginsberg on the supreme court with Trump looking at his watch with the caption 'soon', indicating he is hoping for the death of another individual. He may also be a fan of conspiracy theories.

And this is the person that TBD considers an 'expert'.

There would have been a time on this forum when people from all over the partisan spectrum would have been tripping over themselves to point out how spectacularly fallacious that was, indeed it is a testbook example of an ad hominem fallacy.

Oh well, I guess I will have to do it.

Cool fallacious argument tho! (yikes!)