Officials: Explosive Device Found in NY Mailbox at Home of George Soros
- Thread starter bver_hunter
- Start date
No, just your version of it. There was no right or left motivation in the Giffords shooting. That's the JD talking, not me. You just don't like it because it doesn't fit your fantasy world .
Believe whatever you want to believe. No wonder you think that Trump is an honest guy. LOL!!
Really like your pictures Zaibetter.
PS The leftie are the morons!!
LOL I thought it was funny, unfortunately toguy5252 decided to launch a personal attack against me which is against the rules on Terb. I don't think none of those bombs were meant to explode.
That's funny that you have oagre on ignore, other guys have him too.
The Clinton's were targeted by what looks like an attempted domestic terror attack, and the right wingers are already mocking the Clinton's. Sickening!!
Loughner was not a right winger. He was a registered Democrat. Get your facts straight.
He was registered as an independent.
When he was younger those who knew him described him as quite liberal. After he developed paranoid schizophrenia his views became very Far Right with an obsession with conspiracy theories.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jared_Lee_Loughner
"His friends considered him fun but saw a serious side as Loughner immersed himself in the conspiracy theories popular with a section of the American far right – not least that the government engineered the 9/11 terrorist attacks."
He was not a registered Democrat. So get your facts right!!
2/3's of US terrorism is from right wing idiots like you and zailbetter.
https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch...hirds-us-terrorism-tied-right-wing-extremists
The brown shirts are the problem.
Who send bombs to people, who don't open their own mail? Then the ISIS flag? These bombs were meant to be found. And after the detonation we will find the unharmed ISIS flag there, as an evidence??? Yeah, right! But as we learned from the "Just the truth" CNN at 9/11, the muslim terrorist's papers are tougher than a black box of the airplane. Pathetic!:director:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVpwGr8hu0Q
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVpwGr8hu0Q
Option 1) They're sent by people who don't much care who they blow up; even the mail-room workers are hateful because they do stuff for the main target.
Option 2) They're sent by people who know their 'bombs' will be detected, but are happy to cause their targets as much fear and panic as they can, and to get as much publicity for their opposition and hatred as possible.
Certainty: They're sent by people who have given up on living together who can't manage to deal with life as we find it by peaceable discussion, people who have chosen to use weapons over words because that's the choice they see being made by those who lead them, and by those all around them.
Some live questions at the moment:
1. All networks (including Fox) are describing these pipe bomb deliveries as "attempted attacks". I find that curious, considering that pipe bombs require a detonation trigger, such as an electronic fuse. None of the pictures (x rays) of the bombs that have been made public show any detonation devices. There have been no reports that any of the bombs not shown had such a device. If that is correct, it would be more accurate to say that these devices were sent to intimidate the recipients, rather than "attack" them. Is there much history of political terrorists taking such a "measured" approach to terrorism?
2. There is wide array of "interception" reporting. At least 2 bombs were identified in corporate mailrooms (CNN and DeNiro). One was identified in a mail drop of a personal residence (Soros). One was intercepted at the Capitol Hill mail sorting facility (addressed to Waters). One was intercepted at a US postal facility (Waters 2). Why weren't they all intercepted at US postal sorting facilities? Don't they have bomb scanners? All of the packages appear to have postage stamps.
3. It was reported that at least some of the bombs contained sulfur. Does that mean they were capable of detonation (sulfur is normally used as one ingredient of an explosive, not an explosive on its own), or not? Was the perpetrator simply threatening that he had access to explosive ingredients, and some idea how to make explosives?
4. Why 2 (non-functioning) bombs to Waters? If the object was to threaten Democrats who had encouraged incivility or violence towards Republicans, why did Obama receive one? Unlike the others, he's not on record as encouraging violence or confrontation.
5. The bombs were all addressed from Wasserman Schultz. Were they all posted from the same postal area, or a variety of different post offices? Is there likely one sender, or multiple senders? Why was the Holder bomb delivered to Wasserman Schultz' office?
I'm sure more will occur to me, but that's enough to start.
1. All networks (including Fox) are describing these pipe bomb deliveries as "attempted attacks". I find that curious, considering that pipe bombs require a detonation trigger, such as an electronic fuse. None of the pictures (x rays) of the bombs that have been made public show any detonation devices. There have been no reports that any of the bombs not shown had such a device. If that is correct, it would be more accurate to say that these devices were sent to intimidate the recipients, rather than "attack" them. Is there much history of political terrorists taking such a "measured" approach to terrorism?
2. There is wide array of "interception" reporting. At least 2 bombs were identified in corporate mailrooms (CNN and DeNiro). One was identified in a mail drop of a personal residence (Soros). One was intercepted at the Capitol Hill mail sorting facility (addressed to Waters). One was intercepted at a US postal facility (Waters 2). Why weren't they all intercepted at US postal sorting facilities? Don't they have bomb scanners? All of the packages appear to have postage stamps.
3. It was reported that at least some of the bombs contained sulfur. Does that mean they were capable of detonation (sulfur is normally used as one ingredient of an explosive, not an explosive on its own), or not? Was the perpetrator simply threatening that he had access to explosive ingredients, and some idea how to make explosives?
4. Why 2 (non-functioning) bombs to Waters? If the object was to threaten Democrats who had encouraged incivility or violence towards Republicans, why did Obama receive one? Unlike the others, he's not on record as encouraging violence or confrontation.
5. The bombs were all addressed from Wasserman Schultz. Were they all posted from the same postal area, or a variety of different post offices? Is there likely one sender, or multiple senders? Why was the Holder bomb delivered to Wasserman Schultz' office?
I'm sure more will occur to me, but that's enough to start.
Holder's bomb was mis-addressed and the SOP of the USPS is to return it to the sender. As far as we know, sealed US Mail is still respected rather than inspected. Although very recent technology (and animal training) allows for some level of inspection from without, it's over-optimistic to imagine a cash-strapped, deficit-ridden, tax-cutting Administration has already equipped the entire vast system with the latest gizmos.
As I replied to IRIS, a perp could get almost as satisfactory results from well-faked bombs as from real ones, and without causing actual death and injuries among the target's staff. How any of the targets handle their mail is of course, as varied as anything else people do, even workers in monolithic institutions like the USPS.
I'm curious how you know "…none of the pictures (x rays) of the bombs that have been made public show any detonation devices", and why you think that remarkable. I wonder what you're looking for and not seeing and if you could post a pic or two of such a detail. My own thought is that the first thing a Bomb Squad would do is neutralize, and or remove, the detonating device, before anyone got close enough to take any pictures. But even in place, it wouldn't necessarily feature or even show in the Photo Editor's choice of picture.
Yet another example of an event where people want 'news', but would be better served by waiting for something a little more like 'olders'. Wise of you to wait. Now that we know we're not being targeted, we can be certain more info, and more thoughts will come. In fact we'll profit by the wisdom that waiting encourages.
Nonsense.
The most cursory Google shows coverage of those attacks by Reuters, NBC, Washington Post, and many others. What more does this twit want? Why did he wait until now to ask?
Why post this inflated ugly screenshot crap here? If you think it's helpful to point out murderous crazies come in all political stripes surely you can do it in your own words.
My apologies, I lost track of what thread I was in.
But that overblown and unneeded screenshot is clearly about media suppression. If you want to blame someone for saying Trump is responsible, I can't see how you read that into shack's post Never mind it's nowhere in that other twit's tweet?
All I get from his so-called thought is that some people prefer twittering tit-for-tat retaliation and sandbox name-calling. If you think there's a point to a discussion specific to those ricin attacks, do start a thread. Or add your thoughts about them to what we hope can be an adult discussion here of the very real danger that encouraging extremism and violence presents to all of us. That's what's common to both.
