Manhattan explosion

[Belgian thought]

Intended as in, he tried to blow a lot of people up with a number of bombs. The bombing was not as severe as intended given that some of them didn't even explode and given that nobody was killed. I don't see anything Orwellian in the language.

Tell me a story of setting off an unintended bomb.

ETA Darwin Awards do not count

 

[angrysoba]

Tell me a story of setting off an unintended bomb.

ETA Darwin Awards do not count

No. The confusion is yours, not mine.

You seem to think that "intended bombing" is the same as "intentional bombing". It is not. A bomb that did not go off when it was meant to would be a case of an intended bombing.

 

[angrysoba]

"Stopped car. Looked dodgy"

"5 people being questioned. No charges"

"5 people being held by the FBI. No charges"

"FBI looking for someone of interest. Can't say more"

I don't understand your problem with this either.

 

[Belgian thought]

No. The confusion is yours, not mine.

You seem to think that "intended bombing" is the same as "intentional bombing". It is not. A bomb that did not go off when it was meant to would be a case of an intended bombing.

ok

 

[cullennz]

I don't understand your problem with this either.

It is pointless releases with no substance or relevance that just causes stupid wild media speculation

"Police have detained person's of interest"

Done. End of releases

Would be less stupid

 

[Belgian thought]

ok

... and i am sure many will differentiate with intended murder, and intentional murder - not.

Unintended murder, or unintentional murder.

The grammatical difference is for many none.

And thus playing right into the hands of Mr Trump.

That is the danger of Newspeak.

 

[The Man]

... and i am sure many will differentiate with intended murder,

Attempted murder

and intentional murder - not.

First degree murder.

Unintended murder, or unintentional murder.

Manslaughter

The grammatical difference is for many none.

And thus playing right into the hands of Mr Trump.

That is the danger of Newspeak.

Just the same old speak.

 

[Butter!]

It is pointless releases with no substance or relevance that just causes stupid wild media speculation

"Police have detained person's of interest"

Done. End of releases

Would be less stupid

Can you please just make sense once in awhile? I have no idea what your problem is now, but your comment that this wasn't terror because it didn't work is reminiscent of your recent snarky claims that boiling water is no big deal and can't kill someone. You live on a different planet, apparently.

And now, what? The press are running with scraps of info they receive? Holy ****, really? Well, that's a whole heck of a lot different than the way the press has behaved in every other "breaking news" scenario, ever!

Look, this isn't OJ Simpson bull ****. (And every network thought THAT fully worthy of around-the-clock coverage, as I clearly recall). There were multiple, similar bombs placed in East Coast cities all around the same time. The fact that the bulk didn't go off and no casualties resulted from the ones that did has no bearing on the seriousness of the situation. What, if someone shoots at you and misses, do you consider that person no longer a threat? Even if they're still at large and armed and pissed off at you? I just don't get your snarky little attitude. People have every right to discuss this. It might be a big deal of a near-miss. It certainly isn't nothing. You should be ashamed of the ignorance you so proudly display. I know you have nothing but contempt for the U.S., but that shouldn't matter here. Bombs are bombs. Civilians are civilians. Terrorists are terrorists. Get over whatever stick is up your ass and let people discuss this!

 

[DGM]

Can you please just make sense once in awhile? I have no idea what your problem is now, but your comment that this wasn't terror because it didn't work is reminiscent of your recent snarky claims that boiling water is no big deal and can't kill someone. You live on a different planet, apparently.

And now, what? The press are running with scraps of info they receive? Holy ****, really? Well, that's a whole heck of a lot different than the way the press has behaved in every other "breaking news" scenario, ever!

Look, this isn't OJ Simpson bull ****. (And every network thought THAT fully worthy of around-the-clock coverage, as I clearly recall). There were multiple, similar bombs placed in East Coast cities all around the same time. The fact that the bulk didn't go off and no casualties resulted from the ones that did has no bearing on the seriousness of the situation. What, if someone shoots at you and misses, do you consider that person no longer a threat? Even if they're still at large and armed and pissed off at you? I just don't get your snarky little attitude. People have every right to discuss this. It might be a big deal of a near-miss. It certainly isn't nothing. You should be ashamed of the ignorance you so proudly display. I know you have nothing but contempt for the U.S., but that shouldn't matter here. Bombs are bombs. Civilians are civilians. Terrorists are terrorists. Get over whatever stick is up your ass and let people discuss this!

That's what I love about you kido. Right from the hip..........I hope you're well.

 

[cullennz]

Can you please just make sense once in awhile? I have no idea what your problem is now, but your comment that this wasn't terror because it didn't work is reminiscent of your recent snarky claims that boiling water is no big deal and can't kill someone. You live on a different planet, apparently.

And now, what? The press are running with scraps of info they receive? Holy ****, really? Well, that's a whole heck of a lot different than the way the press has behaved in every other "breaking news" scenario, ever!

Look, this isn't OJ Simpson bull ****. (And every network thought THAT fully worthy of around-the-clock coverage, as I clearly recall). There were multiple, similar bombs placed in East Coast cities all around the same time. The fact that the bulk didn't go off and no casualties resulted from the ones that did has no bearing on the seriousness of the situation. What, if someone shoots at you and misses, do you consider that person no longer a threat? Even if they're still at large and armed and pissed off at you? I just don't get your snarky little attitude. People have every right to discuss this. It might be a big deal of a near-miss. It certainly isn't nothing. You should be ashamed of the ignorance you so proudly display. I know you have nothing but contempt for the U.S., but that shouldn't matter here. Bombs are bombs. Civilians are civilians. Terrorists are terrorists. Get over whatever stick is up your ass and let people discuss this!

I don't dislike America

I dislike stupid hyped media that people jump to conclusions from.

And I have no problem with any one discussing it.

 

[applecorped]

Can you please just make sense once in awhile? I have no idea what your problem is now, but your comment that this wasn't terror because it didn't work is reminiscent of your recent snarky claims that boiling water is no big deal and can't kill someone. You live on a different planet, apparently.

And now, what? The press are running with scraps of info they receive? Holy ****, really? Well, that's a whole heck of a lot different than the way the press has behaved in every other "breaking news" scenario, ever!

Look, this isn't OJ Simpson bull ****. (And every network thought THAT fully worthy of around-the-clock coverage, as I clearly recall). There were multiple, similar bombs placed in East Coast cities all around the same time. The fact that the bulk didn't go off and no casualties resulted from the ones that did has no bearing on the seriousness of the situation. What, if someone shoots at you and misses, do you consider that person no longer a threat? Even if they're still at large and armed and pissed off at you? I just don't get your snarky little attitude. People have every right to discuss this. It might be a big deal of a near-miss. It certainly isn't nothing. You should be ashamed of the ignorance you so proudly display. I know you have nothing but contempt for the U.S., but that shouldn't matter here. Bombs are bombs. Civilians are civilians. Terrorists are terrorists. Get over whatever stick is up your ass and let people discuss this!

+1

 

[ddt]

Let's focus on the good side of this news.

First of all, a handful of bombs and no-one got killed. The attacker was a rank amateur.

Second, the suspect was found sleeping in a doorway. The perpetrators of the Paris and Brussels attacks could hide for weeks, even months with like-minded friends. This guy, in a city of 20 million, had no friends.

 

[smartcooky]

Have any of the usual nutjobs suspects started the "Manhattan Bombing Hoax" thread yet?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

....Second, the suspect was found sleeping in a doorway. The perpetrators of the Paris and Brussels attacks could hide for weeks, even months with like-minded friends. This guy, in a city of 20 million, had no friends.

This is an excellent point.

[/wins thread]

 

[smartcooky]

BM's Matter?

"Dark" Matter?



**** I'll get my coat

 

[Puppycow]

Have any of the usual nutjobs suspects started the "Manhattan Bombing Hoax" thread yet?

A google search on that exact phrase turned up one blog, which appears to a blog mainly promoting flat earth theory. I'm sure there's probably others if you use other search queries, but I'm not that interested in reading more opinions from the delusional.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Have any of the usual nutjobs suspects started the "Manhattan Bombing Hoax" thread yet?

wasn't there the claim that it was a liberal LGBT activist?

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...-blame-chelsea-bombing-on-crazed-leftist.html

 

[angrysoba]

Can you please just make sense once in awhile? I have no idea what your problem is now, but your comment that this wasn't terror because it didn't work is reminiscent of your recent snarky claims that boiling water is no big deal and can't kill someone. You live on a different planet, apparently.

And now, what? The press are running with scraps of info they receive? Holy ****, really? Well, that's a whole heck of a lot different than the way the press has behaved in every other "breaking news" scenario, ever!

Look, this isn't OJ Simpson bull ****. (And every network thought THAT fully worthy of around-the-clock coverage, as I clearly recall). There were multiple, similar bombs placed in East Coast cities all around the same time. The fact that the bulk didn't go off and no casualties resulted from the ones that did has no bearing on the seriousness of the situation. What, if someone shoots at you and misses, do you consider that person no longer a threat? Even if they're still at large and armed and pissed off at you? I just don't get your snarky little attitude. People have every right to discuss this. It might be a big deal of a near-miss. It certainly isn't nothing. You should be ashamed of the ignorance you so proudly display. I know you have nothing but contempt for the U.S., but that shouldn't matter here. Bombs are bombs. Civilians are civilians. Terrorists are terrorists. Get over whatever stick is up your ass and let people discuss this!

That's what I love about you kido. Right from the hip..........I hope you're well.

+1

+3

 

[Hlafordlaes]

But if it is a Christian you'll* only want to punish the person. If it is a Muslim you'll want to punish every single Muslim or anyone that has ever even picked up a Quran at any point in their life.

Just a thought: If it's a democratic government overstepping in a particular case, I'll want to blame the individuals involved (e.g., Christie's New Jersey bridge closing). If it's a totalitarian regime committing crimes against humanity by policy, I'll want to blame the policy (governance in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran, or under ISIS). Concrete example today is Russia, committing crimes owing to the person in power and his cronies, and the USSR doing so before on a larger scale owing to the ideology.

Homework regarding the nature of absolute doctrine is still AWOL in most discourse on international Islamic terror, leaving the door wide open for the Trumps of the world to propose their own 'mo' better' truths. Totalitarianism is unacceptable no matter who is holding up their version of 'perfect truth' or 'common sense' as supreme, and logical contradictions, such as state protection of beliefs that advocate total annihilation of the state granting that protection, cannot stand for long without widespread mayhem.

 

[McHrozni]

But if it is a Christian you'll* only want to punish the person. If it is a Muslim you'll want to punish every single Muslim or anyone that has ever even picked up a Quran at any point in their life.

Kill 'em all just to be sure.

*figurative "you'll"

Can you point out who advocated punishing every single Muslim or anyone that has ever even picked up a Quran at any point in their life?

McHrozni