Attempted bombing

[*Nately120*]

(08-20-2021, 02:44 PM)Au165 Wrote: Depending on if he had ever attempted to acquire anything needed to build said bomb the charges could end up all over the board. If he just rolled up and made the threat you're probably looking at making a terroristic threat and then other various low level charges. If he tried to actually plan and acquire things to make said bomb you are looking at conspiracy to obtain a weapon of mass destruction among other things.

It depends on many factors, but much of counter terrorism involves identifying potential threats via identifiable actions and intervening before things get too far down the line. 

The prosecution will say he made his intentions clear and he was intercepted before he could get closer to achieving that goal.  Can they make a reasonable argument that he was scouting the place our and was going to return with a bomb had that not intervened when they did?  That's the question. 

The DoD hopefully doesn't just wait until potential terrorists are armed and intervene at the second just to make sure their case is as obvious as possible.  Prevention is the name of the game. 

[BigPapaKain]

(08-20-2021, 02:44 PM)Au165 Wrote: Depending on if he had ever attempted to acquire anything needed to build said bomb the charges could end up all over the board. If he just rolled up and made the threat you're probably looking at making a terroristic threat and then other various low level charges. If he tried to actually plan and acquire things to make said bomb you are looking at conspiracy to obtain a weapon of mass destruction among other things.

TERRORIST THREAT!! That's what I wanted to go with but my brain went "merp conspiracy" and I ran with it hoping someone would catch it and give me the right crime.

**** that was bothering me (legit, I hate it when my brain blanks like that).

[Matt_Crimson]

(08-20-2021, 12:55 PM)Au165 Wrote: I used CNN as most view it as a pretty liberal news source for perspective. Social media is a tough one because how much of it is bots pushing it versus humans is tough. That said, what is your point?

Was it not concerning that a domestic terrorist who has been radicalized by misinformation threatened to blow up the capital? This on the heels of other domestic terrorists storming said capital this very year, again because of outright lies? Your kind of arguing semantics when the real threat here isn’t sensationalism, it’s the lack of urgency to a very real and well documented threat to national security. I feel like most wouldn’t worry about sensationalizing the headline here if the guy was a self admitted member of Al Qaeda.

The fear people have isn’t being artificially pushed based on “had a bomb didn’t have a bomb”, the fear is growing because the rapid radicalization of these people is only getting worse and it’s prompting them to do shit like this at all.

Wait……..what?

This isn’t about semantics. People can’t sit there and make shit up and then go, “Eh …. Whatever, so what if he didn’t have a bomb, this is really about confronting the REAL issue of domestic terrorism”.

Am I concerned that some guy threatened to blow up the capital? A tiny bit concerned? Sure. Really concerned? No, not really. I have faith that what can be dealt with will be dealt with by our law  enforcement and intelligence agencies. They don’t always get it right, but they have actually thwarted a lot of shit that you and I never even hear about. Me “being concerned” hasn’t done anything.

You do realize that people threaten to do crazy shit every day across the US yet you don’t hear 99% of it? Do you care about those threats to or is it just this one because the media decided what you should be scared about today?

Sensationalism absolutely is an issue

The propagation of fear leads to action, and when the facts of those fears are distorted you can head down the road of tribalism which can eventually lead to unethical decisions happening all in the name of the greater good because “Eh……..so what if they didn’t have weapons of mass destruction, the point is they COULD have and we needed to stop them!!”

You can’t generate fear and then distort the facts because you feel people aren’t urgent enough to stop the apocalypse of impending doom you believe will befall us. That’s not to say you can’t have your concern, but you can’t use your concerns as a basis to lie and then claim it’s all about defending the greater good. That’s dangerous and can actually in itself lead to further deterioration of society and bring about more chaos because people feel they need to stop the “evil force” that you’ve painted for them that is constructed by lies.

You seem to be so concerned with this guy “Acting on a lie” but then don’t even realize you’re okay with lies yourself because “That’s not what matters. What matters is stopping the bad guys”. No actually it does matter, because what we say can warp people’s perception of reality, and reality matters. If some guy says he’s going to blow up the capital but doesn’t actually have a bomb to do so, that changes the narrative of what could have actually happened, which is absolutely nothing.

On the other hand, if he did have a bomb, well now you have the issue that he actually COULD have killed people/damaged property etc… Now you have the issue of defusing the bomb…….finding out how he made the bomb……where he got the materials….. etc. It becomes not only a different story, but one that is much more severe and could have possibly caused many deaths depending on what the guy actually had.

You can’t demonize people by making up false narratives just so you can make them look like the boogeyman to compel people to act a certain way. That is absolutely bonkers. Wars have been justified with such thinking. People have been harassed and even killed for made up shit. Who cares if so-and-so didn’t ACTUALLY rape her. The point is we need to go full steam ahead against sexual assault! Meanwhile, that guy gets beat to death because someone believed some headline that the guy raped some woman when all he really did was rub her shoulder without consent.

It doesn’t mean he was right in touching her without consent, but it doesn’t mean he’s a rapist either.

[GMDino]

(08-21-2021, 12:59 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: Wait……..what?

This isn’t about semantics. People can’t sit there and make shit up and then go, “Eh …. Whatever, so what if he didn’t have a bomb, this is really about confronting the REAL issue of domestic terrorism”.

Am I concerned that some guy threatened to blow up the capital? A tiny bit concerned? Sure. Really concerned? No, not really. I have faith that what can be dealt with will be dealt with by our law  enforcement and intelligence agencies. They don’t always get it right, but they have actually thwarted a lot of shit that you and I never even hear about. Me “being concerned” hasn’t done anything.

You do realize that people threaten to do crazy shit every day across the US yet you don’t hear 99% of it? Do you care about those threats to or is it just this one because the media decided what you should be scared about today?

Sensationalism absolutely is an issue

The propagation of fear leads to action, and when the facts of those fears are distorted you can head down the road of tribalism which can eventually lead to unethical decisions happening all in the name of the greater good because “Eh……..so what if they didn’t have weapons of mass destruction, the point is they COULD have and we needed to stop them!!”

You can’t generate fear and then distort the facts because you feel people aren’t urgent enough to stop the apocalypse of impending doom you believe will befall us. That’s not to say you can’t have your concern, but you can’t use your concerns as a basis to lie and then claim it’s all about defending the greater good. That’s dangerous and can actually in itself lead to further deterioration of society and bring about more chaos because people feel they need to stop the “evil force” that you’ve painted for them that is constructed by lies.

You seem to be so concerned with this guy “Acting on a lie” but then don’t even realize you’re okay with lies yourself because “That’s not what matters. What matters is stopping the bad guys”. No actually it does matter, because what we say can warp people’s perception of reality, and reality matters. If some guy says he’s going to blow up the capital but doesn’t actually have a bomb to do so, that changes the narrative of what could have actually happened, which is absolutely nothing.

On the other hand, if he did have a bomb, well now you have the issue that he actually COULD have killed people/damaged property etc… Now you have the issue of defusing the bomb…….finding out how he made the bomb……where he got the materials….. etc. It becomes not only a different story, but one that is much more severe and could have possibly caused many deaths depending on what the guy actually had.

You can’t demonize people by making up false narratives just so you can make them look like the boogeyman to compel people to act a certain way. That is absolutely bonkers. Wars have been justified with such thinking. People have been harassed and even killed for made up shit. Who cares if so-and-so didn’t ACTUALLY rape her. The point is we need to go full steam ahead against sexual assault! Meanwhile, that guy gets beat to death because someone believed some headline that the guy raped some woman when all he really did was rub her shoulder without consent.

It doesn’t mean he was right in touching her without consent, but it doesn’t mean he’s a rapist either.

Oh for Christ's sake.

I said attempted...the story did not.

I used attempted because he said that was what he was going to do.

Then everyone agreed with you that it was more "threatened" than attempted and you are STILL arguing that that makes it less troublesome.

Dude is ranting and raving about the big lie and you're not worried because they caught him....good for you.

People are out there being brainwashed and "threatening" to blow up buildings.  That's a fact.  Maybe if we addressed that we could limit the number of "threats" before they become "attempts" or, god forbid successful.

There is nothing made up about what this man did.  Nothing.  You are deliberately misleading the thread over one word in the title...and there is something awfully familiar about that.

[Matt_Crimson]

(08-21-2021, 02:05 PM)GMDino Wrote: Oh for Christ's sake.

I said attempted...the story did not.

I used attempted because he said that was what he was going to do.

Then everyone agreed with you that it was more "threatened" than attempted and you are STILL arguing that that makes it less troublesome.

Dude is ranting and raving about the big lie and you're not worried because they caught him....good for you.

People are out there being brainwashed and "threatening" to blow up buildings.  That's a fact.  Maybe if we addressed that we could limit the number of "threats" before they become "attempts" or, god forbid successful.

There is nothing made up about what this man did.  Nothing.  You are deliberately misleading the thread over one word in the title...and there is something awfully familiar about that.

First: I'm not misleading anything.

Second: The problem is you're making this just about you when I'm talking in general.

He asked me was I concerned and I answered. Apparently that's a crime? Not sure what you're getting at here.

I never said people aren't being brainwashed so that point adds nothing.

You also are assuming these issues aren't being addressed when they actually are. Or are you claiming they're not?

[GMDino]

(08-21-2021, 02:18 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: First: I'm not misleading anything.

Second: The problem is you're making this just about you when I'm talking in general.

He asked me was I concerned and I answered. Apparently that's a crime? Not sure what you're getting at here.

I never said people aren't being brainwashed so that point adds nothing.

You also are assuming these issues aren't being addressed when they actually are. Or are you claiming they're not?

You absolutely dragging the thread about "threatened" vs "attempted.  

I posted about what I thought.  It's not about me.  It's about you still talking about a word.

Not a crime...lol.  Talk about making it about you.  

No you said you are a "little" worried because law enforcement and this guy didn't have a bomb.  

Nah bro...you're just doing what others have done here:  Attacking something that had little to nothing to do with the actual facts in the post.  I recognize it and will not encourage by engaging anymore.

[Matt_Crimson]

(08-21-2021, 03:33 PM)GMDino Wrote: You absolutely dragging the thread about "threatened" vs "attempted.  

I posted about what I thought.  It's not about me.  It's about you still talking about a word.

Not a crime...lol.  Talk about making it about you.  

No you said you are a "little" worried because law enforcement and this guy didn't have a bomb.  

Nah bro...you're just doing what others have done here:  Attacking something that had little to nothing to do with the actual facts in the post.  I recognize it and will not encourage by engaging anymore.

Of course I criticized the title of the thread. 

You want to talk about a news story but at the same time give it an exagerrated title, so I called it out.

I dont get how that's wrong.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-21-2021, 04:35 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: Of course I criticized the title of the thread. 

You want to talk about a news story but at the same time give it an exagerrated title, so I called it out.

I dont get how that's wrong.

I'll help here as I'm used to his pretzel logic.  GM likes to give threads inflammatory/inaccurate titles, for hyperbolic reasons of course.  If you then point this out he will claim you're detracting, or distracting, from the point of the thread.  Of course, he caused this himself with his deliberate choice of words, but I don't know that he understands that, or he chooses not to.  In any event, attempting to explain this is an exercise in futility as he sees what he wants to see in the way he wants to see it.  But, I'm obviously not your father, so if you feel compelled to continue the discussion please do.  Just don't say you weren't warned. 

[Matt_Crimson]

(08-21-2021, 04:41 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'll help here as I'm used to his pretzel logic.  GM likes to give threads inflammatory/inaccurate titles, for hyperbolic reasons of course.  If you then point this out he will claim you're detracting, or distracting, from the point of the thread.  Of course, he caused this himself with his deliberate choice of words, but I don't know that he understands that, or he chooses not to.  In any event, attempting to explain this is an exercise in futility as he sees what he wants to see in the way he wants to see it.  But, I'm obviously not your father, so if you feel compelled to continue the discussion please do.  Just don't say you weren't warned. 

Oh trust me, I haven't been on this board in over a year but I remember most of you guys and it's all starting to come back to me.

I'm still waiting to get into a fight with Dill. That's not a shot at him (her?), but whenever I respond to a thread I pretty much wait for an encyclopedia response to come crashing in.

[*michaelsean*]

(08-20-2021, 02:44 PM)Au165 Wrote: Depending on if he had ever attempted to acquire anything needed to build said bomb the charges could end up all over the board. If he just rolled up and made the threat you're probably looking at making a terroristic threat and then other various low level charges. If he tried to actually plan and acquire things to make said bomb you are looking at conspiracy to obtain a weapon of mass destruction among other things.

I believe you still need at least one other person for a conspiracy. Otherwise it’s just planning. If you have two or more people and do something to advance the crime, then I believe you have a conspiracy.

[GMDino]

(08-21-2021, 04:35 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: Of course I criticized the title of the thread. 

You want to talk about a news story but at the same time give it an exagerrated title, so I called it out.

I dont get how that's wrong.

(08-21-2021, 04:41 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'll help here as I'm used to his pretzel logic.  GM likes to give threads inflammatory/inaccurate titles, for hyperbolic reasons of course.  If you then point this out he will claim you're detracting, or distracting, from the point of the thread.  Of course, he caused this himself with his deliberate choice of words, but I don't know that he understands that, or he chooses not to.  In any event, attempting to explain this is an exercise in futility as he sees what he wants to see in the way he wants to see it.  But, I'm obviously not your father, so if you feel compelled to continue the discussion please do.  Just don't say you weren't warned. 

See...both of you are wrong.

Matt continues to criticize something that has nothing to do with the content of the thread by playing semantics. Something I even acknowledged could be better.

And SSF continues to believe he "knows" me and what I do.

Attacking the poster and the title rather than discussing the topic.

But if that helps you two to glad hand each other and ignore the story more power to ya.

So, once again, I'll explain:  I used attempted because he said he was going to blow up a building but he did not.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-22-2021, 11:09 AM)GMDino Wrote: See...both of you are wrong.

Matt continues to criticize something that has nothing to do with the content of the thread by playing semantics. Something I even acknowledged could be better.

And SSF continues to believe he "knows" me and what I do.

I know your posting history in here, hence my accurate assessment of your posts.

Quote:Attacking the poster and the title rather than discussing the topic.

But if that helps you two to glad hand each other and ignore the story more power to ya.

I'm not ignoring anything, merely explaining to Matt that he was wasting his time.

Quote:So, once again, I'll explain:  I used attempted because he said he was going to blow up a building but he did not.

So when two guys fight and one of them states "I'm going to kill you", is that attempted murder?  I get Matt's question and he is correct, there is a world of difference between attempting to do something and threatening to do something.  Pointing that out is not ignoring the story.  You got called out for this inane crap in the first thread you started upon returning, and not by me or Matt Crimson.  You're well known for this.  I'll leave it at that so as to return to the topic of the thread.

[*michaelsean*]

(08-22-2021, 11:09 AM)GMDino Wrote: See...both of you are wrong.

Matt continues to criticize something that has nothing to do with the content of the thread by playing semantics. Something I even acknowledged could be better.

And SSF continues to believe he "knows" me and what I do.

Attacking the poster and the title rather than discussing the topic.

But if that helps you two to glad hand each other and ignore the story more power to ya.

So, once again, I'll explain:  I used attempted because he said he was going to blow up a building but he did not.

I mean the story is some ***** threatened to detonate a bomb and went as far as driving a van there and needs to go to prison.

Also, you don’t help make it look like you want a conversation when you put things like “but Antifa” as if one eliminates the possibility of discussing the others.

[Matt_Crimson]

(08-22-2021, 11:09 AM)GMDino Wrote: See...both of you are wrong.

Matt continues to criticize something that has nothing to do with the content of the thread by playing semantics. Something I even acknowledged could be better.

And SSF continues to believe he "knows" me and what I do.

Attacking the poster and the title rather than discussing the topic.

But if that helps you two to glad hand each other and ignore the story more power to ya.

So, once again, I'll explain:  I used attempted because he said he was going to blow up a building but he did not.

How does what I said have nothing to do with the content of the thread? 

You're talking about the "dangers of right wing terrorism" because this guy made a bomb threat, and I pointed out that the title of the thread, which is directly related to its contents, presents the story in a way that suggests the guy actually had a bomb.

I said he didn't have a bomb, which is not only talking about the story, aka (content of the thread) but also stating a literal fact about the story itself, which you then shot down as "Well whatever, the point is he threatened to and this shows just how dangerous right wing extremism is" to which my point was.....well then present it in the right context if you want to argue that because whether he actually had a bomb or not matters to the story and the overall conversation.

[Matt_Crimson]

Dino, let me also mention that in your first reply to me, you said.....

Quote:Fair enough.  He didn't actually try to set the bomb off and fail he just threatened to set the bomb off.


Now let's talk about WHY he threatened to set a bomb off.

In this reply you said he "didn't set the bomb off" and further went on to say "he just threatened to set the bomb off" to which again I had to correct you by saying "But he didn't have a bomb".

So, in your response to me, you either didn't know the facts of the story and gleefully posted about it because you couldn't wait to bash the right with disregard for the actual facts of the story, or you were deliberately mis-characterizing the story because it makes it look worse than it actually was.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-22-2021, 02:06 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I mean the story is some ***** threatened to detonate and went as far as driving a van there and needs to go to prison.

Also, you don’t help make it look like you want a conversation when you put things like “but Antifa” as if one eliminates the possibility of discussing the others.

The interesting/ironic thing is when he preemptively rebuts himself with, "but Antifa or BLM, right?" he's doing exactly what he's claiming to avoid, derailing the thread and making excuses.  You are 100% correct, discussing the crimes of one group does not preclude discussing those of the other, but apparently not to GM.  

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-22-2021, 03:02 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: How does what I said have nothing to do with the content of the thread? 

You're talking about the "dangers of right wing terrorism" because this guy made a bomb threat, and I pointed out that the title of the thread, which is directly related to its contents, presents the story in a way that suggests the guy actually had a bomb.

I said he didn't have a bomb, which is not only talking about the story, aka (content of the thread) but also stating a literal fact about the story itself, which you then shot down as "Well whatever, the point is he threatened to and this shows just how dangerous right wing extremism is" to which my point was.....well then present it in the right context if you want to argue that because whether he actually had a bomb or not matters to the story and the overall conversation.

(08-22-2021, 03:21 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: Dino, let me also mention that in your first reply to me, you said.....



In this reply you said he "didn't set the bomb off" and further go on to say "Now let's talk about WHY he threatened to set the bomb off"  to which again I had to correct you by saying "But he didn't have a bomb".

So, in your response to me, you either didn't know the facts of the story and gleefully posted about it because you couldn't wait to bash the right with disregard for the actual facts of the story, or you were deliberately mis-characterizing the story because it makes it look worse than it actually was.

C'mon, man.  Quit discussing the actual facts of the story, you're ruining the thread!  Just to let you know, you'll now be accused of defending right wing extremism because you're "deflecting" from the narrative as presented.

You won't find a single person on this board who will condone, excuse or mitigate the actions of this person, if factual as reported.  Yet, GM appeared to think there'd be a deluge of excuse making.  I suppose he was disappointed when that didn't happen and thus he had to vent his spleen at you.

[Matt_Crimson]

(08-22-2021, 03:26 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: C'mon, man.  Quit discussing the actual facts of the story, you're ruining the thread!  Just to let you know, you'll now be accused of defending right wing extremism because you're "deflecting" from the narrative as presented.

You won't find a single person on this board who will condone, excuse or mitigate the actions of this person, if factual as reported.  Yet, GM appeared to think there'd be a deluge of excuse making.  I suppose he was disappointed when that didn't happen and thus he had to vent his spleen at you.

Just wondering, is this the part where I say checkmate? It feels like it is.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-22-2021, 03:31 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: Just wondering, is this the part where I say checkmate? It feels like it is.

No, there is no such thing here.  Finding someone admitting they were wrong is more rare than hen's teeth.

[*Nately120*]

The guy was mad because his wife's health insurance wouldn't cover all her cancer treatments and he was upset at the government for letting them down rather than working and paying for it himself...ergo, he's clearly a crazy liberal.

Also, this took place on a workday...he wasn't working = ANTIFA