Ed George Soros and others targetted by Terrorist

[angrysoba]

From: https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/11/entertainment/robert-de-niro-trump-tonys/index.html
The venerable actor ended up getting bleeped Sunday night at the Tony Awards when he dropped some f-bombs about President Donald Trump...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfW2TiPAKsw

 

[AnonyMoose]

Well graduated from the Naval Academy, got a MBA from the UCLA School of business (imagine that, an older guy getting an MBA) and was US Navy, Explosive Ordnance Disposal Group ONE.

I'm sure in your mind that self-proclamation served as some kind of relevence to the thread topic and your argument about these bombs being fake and all...

But for the life of me I can't quite put my finger on what that might be?

Come on be a pal, toss us a bone.

 

[angrysoba]

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

Even if they weren’t sending a bomb to someone is a threat. The white powder is also a threat.

 

[PhantomWolf]

It would be extremely weird to describe "not capable of exploding" as "functional", though.

Not really. They never described them as "Functional" they said that they were "Intended to be functional." I could try and build a car with the intent that it was functional, but given my knowledge (and more precisely my lack of if it) the odds are that even after being given the parts to build one, while it might look sort of like a car, and be intended to function, it probably wouldn't be functional.

 

[The Big Dog]

I'm sure in your mind that self-proclamation served as some kind of relevence to the thread topic and your argument about these bombs being fake and all...

But for the life of me I can't quite put my finger on what that might be?

Come on be a pal, toss us a bone.

Hi. Well in this forum we use the quote function. So if you go back to my post, you will see that i was replying to someone who was questioning the bona fides of the expert who has been cited.

When I replied I provided actual facts demonstrating his background in greater detail.

Pretty cool how that works, you'll get the hang of it!

 

[The Big Dog]

Not really. They never described them as "Functional" they said that they were "Intended to be functional." I could try and build a car with the intent that it was functional, but given my knowledge (and more precisely my lack of if it) the odds are that even after being given the parts to build one, while it might look sort of like a car, and be intended to function, it probably wouldn't be functional.

Say, maybe the "function" was not to blow up, but to LOOK like they could blow up....

Hmmmm, give that a solid noodling.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Trump supporters here should try taking a fake bomb through airport security then explain that it is a fake so no law was broken.

 

[AnonyMoose]

Hi. Well in this forum we use the quote function. So if you go back to my post, you will see that i was replying to someone who was questioning the bona fides of the expert who has been cited.

When I replied I provided actual facts demonstrating his background in greater detail.

Pretty cool how that works, you'll get the hang of it!

Oh okay.

So you were citing the credentials of your twitter source (not yourself) as proof the devices were intentionally made to be fake.

Well then, that's all the proof I need that this whole bruhahaha has been nothing but the fake news media making a mountain out of a molehill.

Nothing to see here folks, fake bombs. Stop making a big deal out of such a silly trivial thing, move along.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Trump supporters here should try taking a fake bomb through airport security then explain that it is a fake so no law was broken.

Who said no law was broken?

 

[Checkmite]

Say, maybe the "function" was not to blow up, but to LOOK like they could blow up....

Hmmmm, give that a solid noodling.

Improbable enough to disregard; if the bomb only had to "look like" it was capable of exploded, it did not need to contain explosive powder and shrapnel (which it did), since those could not be seen until the device was disassembled and analyzed.

Good job imagining the only hoax bomb in history to actually contain real explosives, though.

 

[dudalb]

There was a time. and not that long ago, that such an attempted attack would have gotten universal outage regardless of party.
If a good portion of the GOP now has no problem with such an attempted attack, then Democracy in the USA is truly on the critical list.

 

[I Am The Scum]

Improbable enough to disregard; if the bomb only had to "look like" it was capable of exploded, it did not need to contain explosive powder and shrapnel (which it did), since those could not be seen until the device was disassembled and analyzed.

This is precisely why I think incompetence is a better explanation than deception.

Granted, it may be an incompetent attempt at deception. Or, perhaps, a deceptive appearance of incompetence. That gets a bit confusing, though.

 

[theprestige]

Even if they weren’t sending a bomb to someone is a threat. The white powder is also a threat.

Agreed. Sending an unarmed bomb, or even a fake bomb to someone is an unacceptable attack, both on the recipient and on society. I hope they catch whoever did it and punish them to the full extent of the law.

 

[dann]

If a good portion of the GOP now has no problem with such an attempted attack, then Democracy in the USA is truly on the critical list.

Does that mean that it's time to stop helping the GOP by making up stories about the allegedly scary socialists?!

 

[Toontown]

Oh okay.

So you were citing the credentials of your twitter source (not yourself) as proof the devices were intentionally made to be fake.

Well then, that's all the proof I need that this whole bruhahaha has been nothing but the fake news media making a mountain out of a molehill.

Nothing to see here folks, fake bombs. Stop making a big deal out of such a silly trivial thing, move along.

Nope. Can't move along.

Even if the bombs were fake, it was an attempt to use fear to coerce people for political purposes, and that is terrorism of the domestic variety, carrying a mandatory penalty of 30 years to life in prison.

Terrorism is poison to a civilization. Can't be tolerated in any form.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Say, maybe the "function" was not to blow up, but to LOOK like they could blow up....

Hmmmm, give that a solid noodling.

I did, then I applied Hanlon's razor and came to the premise that shoddy workmanship is more likely that someone creating a bomb that was intended to be a hoax out of real explosives and including shrapnel in them. That goes beyond "LOOK like they could blow up."

 

[LSSBB]

Well graduated from the Naval Academy, got a MBA from the UCLA School of business (imagine that, an older guy getting an MBA) and was US Navy, Explosive Ordnance Disposal Group ONE.

But you called him Ziggy, so game set match to you!

Congratulations, you have a data point. What do all the other EOD graduates say, especially the most experienced and highly qualified?

 

[The Big Dog]

Congratulations, you have a data point. What do all the other EOD graduates say, especially the most experienced and highly qualified?

you tell me, if you think it is important.

I notice that a bunch of leftists have been talking about other experts but everyone has failed to produce even a one. Say, maybe you can not fail!
Excited

 

[paulhutch]

How it was used? How could I possibly know that. The FBI is dissecting the bombs right now, not me.

How it could be used? Well in the simplest case, the first digit of the hour only gets turned on when it's 10, 11, or 12. There's a simple signal to tap into if you want a timer less than 9 hours. Want a longer one? An oscillator that runs at a different frequency to make a cheap clock run at a different rate will cost under a dollar.

That clock also has date so you could trigger on when the day ten's digit turns on allowing a period of up to 9 days since activated. I think multi-day delay would be essential for a mail bomb that detonates after some days in transit.

 

[LSSBB]

you tell me, if you think it is important.

I notice that a bunch of leftists have been talking about other experts but everyone has failed to produce even a one. Say, maybe you can not fail!
Excited

Well, you seem to think your one data point is very important, yet you have totally left out any context. I think we can safely dismiss one particular man's opinion without anything else to judge it by.