New video of pipe bomb suspect released.

[onlinebiker]

We could pour plaster on my ass crack and get a casting of his face.

[Brian37]

The  -perp was too stupid to accomplish what they hoped - defense.  So what, it's just as illegal as what they hoped it would be....?

I'm glad that they're dummies who can't get right....but it doesn't change the nature of the crime.

No shit. Outside an attempted terrorist act, in mundane crime, there is a difference between attempted murder, and actual murder. This attempt, even though it failed, is far worse, because it was an attempted act of terrorism that can be seen by sympathizers to make a future attempt. And that inspiration unfortunately can get to someone not as dumb. 

I am glad they were too stupid to get it right, but the attempt alone will bee seen by others as to say, "Hold my bomb". (Hold my beer).

[arewethereyet]

The  -perp was too stupid to accomplish what they hoped - defense.  So what, it's just as illegal as what they hoped it would be....?

I'm glad that they're dummies who can't get right....but it doesn't change the nature of the crime.

No shit. Outside an attempted terrorist act, in mundane crime, there is a difference between attempted murder, and actual murder. This attempt, even though it failed, is far worse, because it was an attempted act of terrorism that can be seen by sympathizers to make a future attempt. And that inspiration unfortunately can get to someone not as dumb. 

I am glad they were too stupid to get it right, but the attempt alone will  seen by others as to say, "Hold my bomb". (Hold my beer).

FTFY

[Rev. Rye]

Trump supporters were trying to kill people with an attack of nefarious  pipe bombs.

- problems with that story -


1. A pipe bomb is a low yield weapon. It is non- directional and non discriminate in it's victims. It can injure or kill friend as easily as foe.

2. Of three bombs - ALL were found - and NONE detonated. The likelyhood of the failure of all three mechanisms points to the likelyhood of planning rather than happenstance. The likelyhood of all three being found makes it likely they were meant to be found.

3. Trumps supporters would have nothing to gain - and could count on bad publicity by planning to plant 3 bombs with no intent of detonation.

4. Trumps detractors on the other hand would have everything to gain.

5. A plain old whackadoodle intent on setting off bombs would likely just light a fuse and toss it into a crowd. 


But you go right on believing what they tell you. I hear that's easier....

You do realize that it’s been explained that it wasn’t necessarily the case that the bombs were intended to kill, right? That it could have been either been a diversion from the capitol riots or that the primary desire was to terrify the RNC and DNC? That these hypotheses have been floated by people directly involved in the investigation? And that I’ve explained this in this thread? And that this doesn’t mean the FBI shouldn’t try and find the culprits?

Also, none of those bombs detonated, but they were still live and were defused on site. So, if a bomb is defused before it can be detonated, does this mean that the authorities shouldn’t bother to look into who actually placed it there?

And are we really assigning that level of rationality to a group of people that fervently believe that Trump won the election in spite of literally all the evidence? And you wonder why people lump you into the same category as many Trump supporters.

[onlinebiker]

Trump supporters were trying to kill people with an attack of nefarious  pipe bombs.

- problems with that story -


1. A pipe bomb is a low yield weapon. It is non- directional and non discriminate in it's victims. It can injure or kill friend as easily as foe.

2. Of three bombs - ALL were found - and NONE detonated. The likelyhood of the failure of all three mechanisms points to the likelyhood of planning rather than happenstance. The likelyhood of all three being found makes it likely they were meant to be found.

3. Trumps supporters would have nothing to gain - and could count on bad publicity by planning to plant 3 bombs with no intent of detonation.

4. Trumps detractors on the other hand would have everything to gain.

5. A plain old whackadoodle intent on setting off bombs would likely just light a fuse and toss it into a crowd. 


But you go right on believing what they tell you. I hear that's easier....

You do realize that it’s been explained that it wasn’t necessarily the case that the bombs were intended to kill, right? That it could have been either been a diversion from the capitol riots or that the primary desire was to terrify the RNC and DNC? That these hypotheses have been floated by people directly involved in the investigation? And that I’ve explained this in this thread? And that this doesn’t mean the FBI shouldn’t try and find the culprits?

Also, none of those bombs detonated, but they were still live and were defused on site. So, if a bomb is defused before it can be detonated, does this mean that the authorities shouldn’t bother to look into who actually placed it there?

And are we really assigning that level of rationality to a group of people that fervently believe that Trump won the election in spite of literally all the evidence? And you wonder why people lump you into the same category as many Trump supporters.

Where the fuck did you get the idea tha I think the FBI shouldn't be looking for the cunts who did this? Of COURSE they should. Do you think you can make me look bad by making such stupid, foundless accusations?

The whole of my point - is the only people who "know" who did this are the perps - and all those smug fucks who are sure their agenda is "truth, justice and the American way".

[Rev. Rye]

Besides the fact that you’ve spent the entire thread mocking people for taking the threat seriously?

[onlinebiker]

Besides the fact that you’ve spent the entire thread mocking people for taking the threat seriously?

I mock those that jump on board the bandwagon  because they find a version of a story that fits what they already believe.

Beliefs are not facts.

They deserve mocking .

[The Architect Of Fate]

1. Are you implying that of the 275 threads OLB has started I have posted a refutation to his nonsense on everyone? Amazing 

2. You confuse hate with giving nonsense it's due.

3.  I have done more volunteer work in the last 20 years than you'll do in 60 so I think I'm doing fine in that regard. But thanks for your suggestion 

---

Oh but I'm a big meanie for daring to criticize OLB on a public forum.

---

Oh FYI here is a whole whack of threads OLB has started I have never commented on.
https://atheistforums.org/thread-62236.html
https://atheistforums.org/thread-62150.html
https://atheistforums.org/thread-61066.html
https://atheistforums.org/thread-62039.html
https://atheistforums.org/thread-61795.html
https://atheistforums.org/thread-61759.html
https://atheistforums.org/thread-56869.html
https://atheistforums.org/thread-56918.html
https://atheistforums.org/thread-57255.html
https://atheistforums.org/thread-57338.html
https://atheistforums.org/thread-61336.html
https://atheistforums.org/thread-61224.html
https://atheistforums.org/thread-61127.html
https://atheistforums.org/thread-61128.html
https://atheistforums.org/thread-61042.html
https://atheistforums.org/thread-60923.html

16 out of 275 - yep, that's a convincing argument.

1. He asked for 1 I gave him 16
2. Did I say that was a complete list of all the threads OLB made that I didn't comment on? No, don't believe I did.

---

I mock those that jump on board the bandwagon  because they find a version of a story that fits what they already believe.

Beliefs are not facts.

They deserve mocking .

You mean that thing that didn't happen

[Rev. Rye]

Besides the fact that you’ve spent the entire thread mocking people for taking the threat seriously?

I mock those that jump on board the bandwagon  because they find a version of a story that fits what they already believe.

Beliefs are not facts.

They deserve mocking .

Beliefs only deserve mocking when they go against the known facts. And, at the moment, nothing known goes against the hypotheses that a Trump supporter planting the bombs A) to do some legitimate harm, even if their limitations prevent them from doing much harm, B) as a diversionary tactic to draw police away from the Capitol, or C) just to scare the DNC and RNC. Indeed, it looks like the FBI thinks these are likely hypotheses.

And, while Trump's supporters have far more to lose from a bomb attack, frankly, that hasn't stopped them before and if they're dedicated enough to baseless conspiracy theories about how Trump won the election in spite of literally all the evidence pointing to that to the point where they're willing to storm the capital and overthrow the government, forgive me for not assuming that their moral calculus is going to work the same way yours did.

If they catch the guy and it turns out it was actually, I dunno, some weird sort of ad campaign for their TV series and the timing was an unfortunate coincidence, or that it was actually a false flag committed by the left to make the opposition look worse, then arguing that it was a Trump-supporter's plot would deserve mocking. Until then (or some other information comes out), these hypotheses are valid.

[The Architect Of Fate]

I mock those that jump on board the bandwagon  because they find a version of a story that fits what they already believe.

Beliefs are not facts.

They deserve mocking .

Beliefs only deserve mocking when they go against the known facts.  And, at the moment, nothing known goes against the hypotheses that a Trump supporter planting the bombs A) to do some legitimate harm, even if their limitations prevent them from doing much harm, B) as a diversionary tactic to draw police away from the Capitol, or C) just to scare the DNC and RNC. Indeed, it looks like the FBI thinks these are likely hypotheses.

And, while Trump's supporters have far more to lose from a bomb attack, frankly, that hasn't stopped them before and if they're dedicated enough to baseless conspiracy theories about how Trump won the election in spite of literally all the evidence pointing to that to the point where they're willing to storm the capital and overthrow the government, forgive me for not assuming that their moral calculus is going to work the same way yours did.

If they catch the guy and it turns out it was actually, I dunno, some weird sort of ad campaign for their TV series and the timing was an unfortunate coincidence, or that it was actually a false flag committed by the left to make the opposition look worse, then arguing that it was a Trump-supporter's plot would deserve mocking. Until then (or some other information comes out), these hypotheses are valid.

The false flag theory gets even sillier when one considers the left already won.