He showed people, a clock, stripped down or not, it remains a clock.
Good, so without a hoax bomb, there can be no bomb hoax. I'm glad we've gotten to this magical point in our discussion.
Your argument got really stupid, really fast. Please strap sausage links to your chest and run into a bank? If nothing else for the amazing headline that would come out of it. By my logic, what stupid people interpret is just that, their dumb interpretation of what is happening. By your argument, if I give you a laptop, and you call it a hoax bomb - it becomes a hoax bomb. That's pretty stupid.
This once again is refuted by everything we know about the case. I'm sorry you're having such a hard time with a simple concept. The rest of your conspiracy theory (as I accurately described it earlier) was removed because I simply have no interest in entertaining it. Take it to the CT forum? It'll fit well with jet fuel can't melt steel beams, and short form birth certificates don't count.
The device was a hoax bomb.
.. he just told people it was a clock to save his a$$ from seeing his buddies in G-Bay.
Irrelevant... most people are not munitions experts,
and it only takes a couple people to make the mistake before panic starts, thus making, in my example, the sausage links a hoax bomb...
You do realize that a hoax bomb, by definition would not be an explosive device, right?
Or in your mind is it only a hoax bomb if its a real bomb that you don't make explode?
Oh, so jet fuel can melt steel beams? Care to demonstrate this?
(And I mean melt as in molten, not melt as in soften)
You do realize there can be no hoax bomb, without something being called a bomb. Yes? It's pretty silly that you continue to say there was no attempt to call it a bomb, but it was a hoax bomb. The entire definition of a hoax bomb depends on calling it a bomb. None of that occurred here.
Or, because it was a clock. You know, you're getting sillier and sillier. If I call it a cellphone, and you decide it's a bomb, am I calling it a cellphone to avoid G-Bay? Lol. Don't be ridiculous.
What most people are or aren't is irrelevant. You don't have to be a munition's expert to be able to tell when an object is not a bomb.
I don't think you understood what I said.
No, it's a hoax bomb, if it was part of a hoax to make it appear as if there was a bomb. It's clear that no attempt was made as per the Irving PD's investigation, as well as the simple fact that in order to have a bomb hoax, you need to pretend like your item is a bomb.
Except it was made to appear as a bomb... so thanks for the concession.
This isn't supported by anything we know about the story, the police investigation, witness statements, or the statements from Ahmed and his family. Hopefully, you'll realize this one day instead of trying to promote your conspiracy theory. It's simply you wanting to believe that's what it was for because well, you seem to enjoy conspiracy theories.
Then there won't be any money left to pay teachers or educate kids. Is that what you want ??
If people can successfully sue for things like this, don't you think there are people clever enough to finds ways to get falsely arrested? We already know of people trying to injure themselves while in police custody, for instance.
And it's not just the school that gets punished, it's the public.
I don't know what pictures you've been looking at, but the ones i've seen look like a briefcase of wires and circuit boards.
None of this has anything to do with lawsuits. Good grief, you've essentially called civil lawsuits acts of domestic terrorism. Are you serious?
The kid was charged with a TX law initially, but, it's never too late to charge them all now on Federal statutes.
BTW: they only threatened a lawsuit if the money wasn't handed over. [more domestic terrorism]
Lmao, it was devised to demonstrate to a teacher that he could put things together and then shown to the appropriate teacher. Another teacher asked to see it, like the technologically illiterate in this thread and others on the matter, they flipped out, and called the cops. Now the city will pay for a person too stupid to understand that a few wires in a little box don't make a bomb anymore than the inside of a laptop represents a portable Hadron Collider.
No, the kid was never charged with anything. You're just making stuff up at this point.
I don't think you know what "domestic terrorism" means.
Good luck convincing any jury that they were guilty beyond reasonable doubt with evidence so weak even the police thought arresting Mohamed was a mistake.The kid was charged with a TX law initially, but, it's never too late to charge them all now on Federal statutes.
TIL that demanding monetary compensation is domestic terrorism!BTW: they only threatened a lawsuit if the money wasn't handed over. [more domestic terrorism]
Good luck convincing any jury that they were guilty beyond reasonable doubt with evidence so weak even the police thought arresting Mohamed was a mistake.
TIL that demanding monetary compensation is domestic terrorism!
No, the original act was domestic terrorism. Essentially they want to be paid fro acting criminally.
Then why did you say that demanding money was "more domestic terrorism?" Again, good luck peddling this bizarre hypothesis to a jury, or even to a Patriot Act military tribunal, when the cops thought they screwed up and had no real reason to arrest him.
No, the original act was domestic terrorism. Essentially they want to be paid fro acting criminally.
The original act was not domestic terrorism. It may have been a stunt hatched by his Islamist father in order to serve an agenda, but it wasn't terrorism.
Sounds like the very definition of terrorism to me.The original act was not domestic terrorism. It may have been a stunt hatched by his Islamist father in order to serve an agenda, but it wasn't terrorism.
Sounds like the very definition of terrorism to me.
Sounds like the very definition of terrorism to me.
I think people need to be careful to not expand the meaning of a term to suit their agenda. Just as there seems to be no end to the number of dogmatic leftists who babble on about "state terrorism" as they seek to justify Islamic terrorism through false equivalences with western actions, I think it incumbent for those on the right to limit the definition to actual cases of mayhem.
Although I see it as intentional provocation, it strikes me as arising from some misguided desire to point out stereotyping of Muslims.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?