Ed George Soros and others targetted by Terrorist

[lomiller]

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’s” are worthless. “If” the aliens land tomorrow and tell you about the wonders of baby Jesus what would that prove the earth is 6000 years old?

Relevant to this case:
I’d expect the bomber to claim “it wasn’t connected” regardless.
I’d expect the bomb disposal team to not know if it was connected properly when they found it.
If they could It would not tell us whether the bomber was trying to connect it properly or not, unless it was something silly like just throwing some lose wires in the package, which doesn’t seem to be the case here.

 

[CORed]

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

I would say unless they catch the perp and he chooses to explain his motivation, we don't really know what his motivation was. It is perfectly possible that the perp intended them to explode, and made them incompetently.

 

[WilliamSeger]

I don't know why I bother posting links anymore, the Resistance does not read them. Except if I do not post the links, they are unable to find them, and whine piteously about it; then i link them, and they don't read them.

Que sera sera

In the immortal words of the famous orator George W. Bush, "Fool me twice, we won't get fooled again." People are likely to stop reading your links when, time after time, they don't really support what you're saying or they support some point that you are disingenuously using for deflection.

 

[AnonyMoose]

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.

The Trumpettes™ are grasping at straws.

They're vehemently trying to prove that the nutbags who are sending out these bombs to any dissenting voices against Dear Leader didn't really mean to cause any harm. Therefore, this bomb stuff doesn't count as violent deplorable behaviour.

It's a total failure of logic, but what the hell because:

"Desperate times call for desperate measures."





And if that particular straw grasping fails, then they'll reach for the tried and true:

False Flag - it's really democrats who are doing this to make us republicans look bad.

 

[The Big Dog]

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.

zzzz...... more straw men, more lies...

 

[Arcade22]

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

That's irrelevant as far as political Terrorism is concerned.

Making threatening phone calls, sending letters with bullets in them or photos with their children walking to school still constitutes terrorism if it's done to threaten people for having participated in the political process. Terrorism aims to instill terror and fear in both individuals and wider society for one reason or another. This can be accomplished more often than not without bombing or shooting someone.

 

[Segnosaur]

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.

Errr... not really.

You see, part of being a 'skeptic' means that you consider the quality of the source when evaluating how much credibility to assign to expertise provided by an individual. Someone who is 1) biased, and 2) prone to conspiracy theories is someone who's expertise will have always been viewed with suspicion.

Dump this guy's 'expertise' in the same bucket as you dump Gish's expertise when talking about evolution...

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

The Trumpettes™ are grasping at straws.

They're vehemently trying to prove that the nutbags who are sending out these bombs to any dissenting voices against Dear Leader didn't really mean to cause any harm. Therefore, this bomb stuff doesn't count as violent deplorable behaviour.

It's a total failure of logic, but what the hell because:

"Desperate times call for desperate measures."





And if that particular straw grasping fails, then they'll reach for the tried and true:

False Flag - it's really democrats who are doing this to make us republicans look bad.

I'm not sure they all are, I was riding with a Trumper when we first heard about all the bombs and here's what he said: "Looks like someone's trying to send those traitors a message, stop ******* with our country". He did agree that mailing bombs is never the right thing to do, but empathizes with the sentiment behind this bunch....

 

[The Big Dog]

Errr... not really.

You see, part of being a 'skeptic' means that you consider the quality of the source when evaluating how much credibility to assign to expertise provided by an individual. Someone who is 1) biased, and 2) prone to conspiracy theories is someone who's expertise will have always been viewed with suspicion.

Dump this guy's 'expertise' in the same bucket as you dump Gish's expertise when talking about evolution...

Errr, yeah, totally embarrassingly fallacious.

Former bomb disposal expert in the armed forces, but likes Trump, so

REJECTED.

 

[BobTheCoward]

I'm not sure they all are, I was riding with a Trumper when we first heard about all the bombs and here's what he said: "Looks like someone's trying to send those traitors a message, stop ******* with our country". He did agree that mailing bombs is never the right thing to do, but empathizes with the sentiment behind this bunch....

I think many can agree with the sentiment that traitors should not do traitorous things. Sentiment agreement is a pretty uninteresting bar.

 

[lomiller]

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

You realize that other than verified accounts twitter is an anonymous platform right? You can call yourself anything you want, you can make up whatever name you want.

Hi I have explained my position and supported it.

“someone I don't know said it on twitter” is neither argument nor support for an argument. Again, I don’t care what reasons some random person on twitter has for thinking something. They are not posting here in this thread, you are.

 

[theprestige]

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

That doesn't seem like a sound basis for an attempted murder conviction.

"I thought about killing you, but then I decided to just scare you with a harmless prop."

"In that case, the harmless prop is attempted murder."​

Doesn't work for me. At all.

 

[Cabbage]

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?

That's one hell of a goal post move!

Matter of fact, I think you even changed the sport being played! LOL!

 

[Slings and Arrows]

Observations from a former Navy veteran bomb disposal officer:

1. Proper pipe bombs don't have wires connected to both ends. That's dumb.

2. You can find timers / remote control receivers WAY smaller than whatever that white box is. A proper timer would best be stored inside the pipe, making it fully encapsulated. That thing is just silly looking.

3. Bottom Line: Whoever made that wanted it to be painfully obvious to anyone and everyone that it's a "bomb."

This is nearly the same as a bundle of road flares wrapped together with an old-timey alarm clock ticking away.

4. 'Hoax Devices' are FAR more common than real ones. In which case, we should ask ourselves what the motives of the bomber are and who benefits?

-- Tom Sauer (Navy Explosive Ordnance Disposal Veteran) Oct 24, 2018
​

Fake News
Fake Bombs
Fake Spartacus
Fake Cherokee
Fake Caravan
Fake Rape
Fake Blue Wave

#FakeBombGate

 

[theprestige]

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...

Feel free to cite it any time.

 

[Toontown]

zzzz...... more straw men, more lies...

zzzz..... what?! You woke me up to say that?

Dude...it has been well established that your contributions have little probative value, if any. No need to keep belaboring that triviality. Please at least have a peg leg to stand on the next time you wake me up.

 

[Elagabalus]

Observations from a former Navy veteran bomb disposal officer:

1. Proper pipe bombs don't have wires connected to both ends. That's dumb.

2. You can find timers / remote control receivers WAY smaller than whatever that white box is. A proper timer would best be stored inside the pipe, making it fully encapsulated. That thing is just silly looking.

3. Bottom Line: Whoever made that wanted it to be painfully obvious to anyone and everyone that it's a "bomb."

This is nearly the same as a bundle of road flares wrapped together with an old-timey alarm clock ticking away.

4. 'Hoax Devices' are FAR more common than real ones. In which case, we should ask ourselves what the motives of the bomber are and who benefits?

-- Tom Sauer (Navy Explosive Ordnance Disposal Veteran) Oct 24, 2018
​

Fake News
Fake Bombs
Fake Spartacus
Fake Cherokee
Fake Caravan
Fake Rape
Fake Blue Wave

#FakeBombGate

Tom Ziggy Sauer is fake.

 

[theprestige]

I would say unless they catch the perp and he chooses to explain his motivation, we don't really know what his motivation was. It is perfectly possible that the perp intended them to explode, and made them incompetently.

I agree.

It's mostly academic anyway.

But it would be weird to describe the bombs as "functional" if they were assembled in a way that prevents them from detonating.

 

[pgwenthold]

The Trumpettes™ are grasping at straws.

They're vehemently trying to prove that the nutbags who are sending out these bombs to any dissenting voices against Dear Leader didn't really mean to cause any harm.

Then again, maybe the douche doing this is trying to cause harm but isn't competent?

Could be Joe Salucci from Airplane II

A passenger has a bomb and is suicidal.
Good one.
His name is Joe Salucci.
He was flying to Des Moines for an operation for sexual impotence.
- The Des Moines Institute?
- You know it?
We're familiar with it.
Joe gave his wife this insurance policy then got on the shuttle.
Mrs Salucci thinks he's suicidal.
We had the boys in psychiatry do a profile on him.
- Yeah, that looks pretty bad.
- It's not his good side.
Now, blowing up a plane in space leaves no traces for investigators.
This is a $1-million policy.
Wait a minute.
This is auto insurance!
That's why we're worried, gentlemen.
This clown's impotent, suicidal and incredibly stupid.
And that spells trouble in my book.

 

[AnonyMoose]

I'm not sure they all are, I was riding with a Trumper when we first heard about all the bombs and here's what he said: "Looks like someone's trying to send those traitors a message, stop ******* with our country". He did agree that mailing bombs is never the right thing to do, but empathizes with the sentiment behind this bunch....

So he contradicted himself.

By empathizing with the sentiment behind these actions, he's indirectly agreeing with the actions in some way, shape, or form.

But was obligated to say out loud (with you sitting there as a witness), "mailing bombs is never the right thing to do". It's an obligatory nod for the sake of self preservation.

Otherwise known as: CYA - Cover Your Ass.