"Several reasons why this bomb wouldn't explode"...so what does that mean?

[lostnfound]

Last edited Thu Oct 25, 2018, 11:11 AM - Edit history (1)

They had an X-ray of one on TV and one of their counterterrorism experts (Clint?) said “there are several reasons why this bomb wouldn’t have exploded...not going to detail them because I don’t want to teach the bomber anything...”

Not just one reason, but several. To me, it sounded like an amateur psychops effort more than an attempt at terror. On edit: “deadly terror” or “mass killing”.

Terrorism expert Jim Cavanaugh is thinking it’s not a hoax because there is shrapnel inside (where it wouldn’t even be seen) and not on the outside, where you’d get a visual.

Maybe it’s a very stupid MAGA person who is taking out his trumped up anger on the boogeymen.

Maybe it’s a Karl Rove type ratforking, where three days before the election, we will be shown trumped evidence purporting to prove that it was leftie plot (frame an antifa, maybe?) intended to tip the election.

It did manage to knock Khashoggi out of the news.

Or maybe there’s one intended target that will receive one that is more effectively built, and the rest was just a cover story.

I’m disgusted, like everyone else. I have a person I love very much who devoted her life to the noble pursuit of journalism.

America in 2018 is just so disorienting.. which benefits mendacious creeps in power..

[WeekiWater]

1. If they could explode or not.

Makes zero difference when it comes to being labeled terrorism.

[lostnfound]

11. Agreed. Nt

[DemocratSinceBirth]

2. "It did manage to knock Khashoggi out of the news. "

The MAGAbomber story is much worse for the Repugnants than Khashoggi, much, much worse.

[lostnfound]

12. I've never been good at judging the political reactions of my fellow Americans

So I defer to you and others.

I never comprehended how anyone could vote for Nixon over McGovern or Bush over Gore and Kerry or... well you get the idea.

[Blaukraut]

16. While it's definitely worse for Republicans, it sure helps the Saudis n/t

[TrishaJ]

3. "Amateur psychops" sending bombs

to specific targets through the mail - whether the bombs work or not - IS terrorism.

[lostnfound]

13. That's true. I should have said "mass killing" or simply "fatalities". Nt

[PubliusEnigma]

4. He said he could see why they didn't explode. Not that they were made to be duds.

There is a big difference.

[C_U_L8R]

5. It's attempted murder

Attempted assasinations of Trump’s critics. Those he calls his enemies. We know where the blame goes. Right where the buck stops.

[sarisataka]

6. They should emphasize

To take all of the bombs seriously.

It would be a good set up to send non exploding bombs then switch up.

"Look at this package everyone. It's one of those bombs that doesn't..." **BOOM**

[onenote]

7. The bomb squads handling these devices are not treating them as innocuous

They have been destroying them and the FBI and Secret Service have described them as "potentially explosive" and "potentially destructive".

So this "expert" may be certain these devices are non-functioning, I'm going to go with the cautious approach taken by those who actually are handling them.

[LakeSuperiorView]

8. Non-functioning implies they couldn't have exploded...

The expert said they didn't explode. While they didn't "function", I feel non-functioning means they couldn't. YMMV. Just my $0.02

[ProfessorGAC]

9. This Was Amateur Night

And i applaud the expert for not describing why they wouldn't detonate so as not to be an instructional guide.

It's not that easy to make a small device detonatable and that's likely what happened here.

Remember when Ted Kaczinski was doing what he did, that was a brilliant, no matter how misguided and disturbed, guy.

Whoever did this is far from brilliant.

But, they're still a terrorist, because they fully expected their little "toy" to work.

[LakeSuperiorView]

14. Yes, they all failed. But I still say that non-functional implies that they couldn't work.

Had any of them sat until the timers expired they could have triggered. They did not say anything about the explosive material itself. If it was not actually explosive, then non-functional is appropriate. What I have been hearing is failed to explode.

[ProfessorGAC]

18. First...

...I said being a dumbass still makes it terrorism

Second, a bomb that can't explode is not a bomb

Its a dumb ass punk's version of intimidation

The conclusion is that it's a dumb ass punk who couldn't open a jar of mustard

[LakeSuperiorView]

19. Sorry, save your lectures for your students.

I said that the term "non-functional" is not appropriate. Please provide a link supporting your claim that it couldn't explode. Didn't explode does not mean couldn't explode. I have yet to see anything authoritative that says it couldn't explode.

I never claimed it wasn't terrorism, go find someone claiming that to argue with.

If you want to assume that it is perfectly safe to rip open unexpected packages, by all means do so, but please don't tell that to other people.

[ProfessorGAC]

20. Duh!

Completely missed the point. Congratulations

[LakeSuperiorView]

21. Wow, what a learned comeback.

Last edited Fri Oct 26, 2018, 01:17 PM - Edit history (1)

Can't wait for your "I am rubber, you are glue" ensemble.

I still claim non-functional is not an accurate description, and don't really care what you seemingly are trying to tell me.

Adding:CNN quotes investigators as saying they were functional but unstable, meaning they could be set off merely by handling. So again, save your lectures for someone who cares. Of course it is terrorism, no one is saying that is not. Your claim that it is amateur hour is your opinion and you are enititled to it. But pick another venue and stop trying to tag your 2 cents onto my opinion. I said non-functional was not accurate and still hold to that.

[mn9driver]

10. Homemade bombs all have certain required components.

From the reporting about these devices, they had at least some of those components. It’s probably best to not get into details of exactly what is required, but I will say that it appears that one of two things happened:

1. The bombs were designed to demonstrate that the unknown bomber could have made these things to explode, but intentionally did not do so.

Or

2. The unknown bomber simply got it wrong and failed to test the design.

The investigators certainly already know which of these is true. I’ll be very surprised if they don’t catch this person within the next couple of days.

[dembotoz]

24. So how can u field test ur bomb design

Bombs are loud people notice
It is instructive that closed bombing ranges do not become picnic sites due to unexploded ordinance.
If the military bombs have a failure rate, a rookie would too

[Tommy_Carcetti]

15. It means we're dealing with the Dunning Kruger effect.

A "very passionate" Trump fan goes onto the dark web and finds a recipe to build a bomb. Unfortunately it's not a very good one, so the bomb doesn't go off.

It's simple as that.

No psyops. Just someone stupid who thought he was being clever.

[fescuerescue]

17. Dunning Kruger is all over this

Not to mention plenty of Dunning-Kruger club members analyzing it over the Internet.

[Vinca]

22. I vote for dimwitted Trumphumper bomb maker.

In any case, according to other reports, all the components were there and that's enough to send a person to the big house for many, many decades. It's probably just luck no one has been killed. I don't know what the explosive was, but it might have been transported in the cargo hold of passenger aircraft. It's not just targets and postal workers who have been at risk.

[kcr]

23. It did take some attention off Khashoggi, but

It also majorly knocked the wind out of the sails of The Caravan is Coming! That was working and I'm sure they would have loved to ride that to the mid-terms.