Terrorist Bombing in New York

[Boxlicker101]

I don't think this has gotten here yet.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_times_square_car_bomb

 

[sr71plt]

Certainly hasn't gotten here in the form in which you've slugged it. It's not a bombing. It's a failed bombing attempt.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Certainly hasn't gotten here in the form in which you've slugged it. It's not a bombing. It's a failed bombing attempt.

Semantics, semantics!

Okay, it's a failed terrorist bombing attempt.

 

[sr71plt]

Semantics, semantics!

Okay, it's a failed terrorist bombing attempt.

This is the sort of semantical problem that get you into trouble regularly here, Box--not seeing the difference in something that happened and something that didn't happen.

 

[Boxlicker101]

This is the sort of semantical problem that get you into trouble regularly here, Box--not seeing the difference in something that happened and something that didn't happen.

But this is something that DID happen. Terrorists planted a car bomb in Times Square and it failed to go off. That is a concrete fact that not even you can deny, although I am sure you will try to do so.

 

[Guest]

You mean terrorists didn't blow up New York?

 

[Boxlicker101]

You mean terrorists didn't blow up New York?

Not yet.

 

[oggbashan]

But this is something that DID happen. Terrorists planted a car bomb in Times Square and it failed to go off. That is a concrete fact that not even you can deny, although I am sure you will try to do so.

Somebody planted a car bomb that failed to go off.

Despite at least two claims of responsibility, we don't yet know who, or why.

The description of the device's components suggests an amateur. The major terrorist groups are usually more professional, and deadly, in their bomb-making.

It could have been placed by a single deranged individual.

Og

 

[al_Ussa]

Somebody planted a car bomb that failed to go off.

Despite at least two claims of responsibility, we don't yet know who, or why.

The description of the device's components suggests an amateur. The major terrorist groups are usually more professional, and deadly, in their bomb-making.

It could have been placed by a single deranged individual.

Og

Let us not forget that there are people who would love to use this sort of thing as an excuse to support/intensify efforts for a war.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

I think I agree with Og. Wiring up a car bomb isn't rocket science. It is a little technical but not beyond the skill of a shade tree mechanic. I mean, firecrackers?

 

[sr71plt]

But this is something that DID happen. Terrorists planted a car bomb in Times Square and it failed to go off. That is a concrete fact that not even you can deny, although I am sure you will try to do so.

No the bombing DIDN'T happen. And there's no evidence yet the bomb was placed by terrorists rather than a disgruntled husband or something. See, that's the root of your problem in analyzing anything.

There was a serious incident. It involved a failed bombing attempt. It did not involve a successful bombing. And there's no proof yet that it was a political act.

You tie yourself up in knots constantly on not being able to see differences like this.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Alleged terrorists plant what is alleged to be bomb in an SUV in New York...it's a dud.

 

[oggbashan]

Alleged terrorists plant what is alleged to be bomb in an SUV in New York...it's a dud.

Plot bunny:

Good Ole Boys want to show Big Gov'mint how incompetent their anti-terrorist laws and agencies are. They load up their SUV, drive it to Times Square, stop to buy a couple of beers...

...and their SUV gets found before they've finished the first six-pack.

Og

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Plot bunny:

Good Ole Boys want to show Big Gov'mint how incompetent their anti-terrorist laws and agencies are. They load up their SUV, drive it to Times Square, stop to buy a couple of beers...

...and their SUV gets found before they've finished the first six-pack.

Og

No sex in it, they need to stop at a local brothel to knock off a piece before continuing their adventure!

 

[Boxlicker101]

Originally Posted by Boxlicker101
But this is something that DID happen. Terrorists planted a car bomb in Times Square and it failed to go off. That is a concrete fact that not even you can deny, although I am sure you will try to do so.

No the bombing DIDN'T happen. And there's no evidence yet the bomb was placed by terrorists rather than a disgruntled husband or something. See, that's the root of your problem in analyzing anything.

There was a serious incident. It involved a failed bombing attempt. It did not involve a successful bombing. And there's no proof yet that it was a political act.

You tie yourself up in knots constantly on not being able to see differences like this.

If this proves to be a bogus bomb, with water instead of gasoline and empty propane tanks, I will concede it was not a terrorist attempt. However, if it is a real bomb, or explosive device that did not go off, for one reason or another, I will still call it an attempted bombing by terrorists or a terrorist. The shoe bomber and the Detroit Christmas Eve bomber were terrorists, even though their attempts were thwarted.

I don't know the identity of the terrorist(s). If there is a disgruntled husband who tried to make a statement against the divorce or child custody laws, and he chose this method to do so, that would not make it any less of an act of terrorism.

 

[sr71plt]

Originally Posted by Boxlicker101
But this is something that DID happen. Terrorists planted a car bomb in Times Square and it failed to go off. That is a concrete fact that not even you can deny, although I am sure you will try to do so.



If this proves to be a bogus bomb, with water instead of gasoline and empty propane tanks, I will concede it was not a terrorist attempt. However, if it is a real bomb, or explosive device that did not go off, for one reason or another, I will still call it an attempted bombing by terrorists or a terrorist. The shoe bomber and the Detroit Christmas Eve bomber were terrorists, even though their attempts were thwarted.

I don't know the identity of the terrorist(s). If there is a disgruntled husband who tried to make a statement against the divorce or child custody laws, and he chose this method to do so, that would not make it any less of an act of terrorism.

What I'll concede is that you are clueless and jump right to unfounded conclusions--and that this thread is a prime example of your failing in this regard.

 

[Boxlicker101]

What I'll concede is that you are clueless and jump right to unfounded conclusions--and that this thread is a prime example of your failing in this regard.

The NY authorities have expressed confidence in being able to learn the identity of the person or persons who left the SUV in Times Square. I guess then we will know if my conclusions were unfounded.

 

[sr71plt]

The NY authorities have expressed confidence in being able to learn the identity of the person or persons who left the SUV in Times Square. I guess then we will know if my conclusions were unfounded.

God, Box, this is about you providing misinformation. It has nothing to do with what they finally find out. You made unfounded assertions (as usual) and ran with them (as usual). And are still out there running with them. Shameless.

 

[Boxlicker101]

God, Box, this is about you providing misinformation. It has nothing to do with what they finally find out. You made unfounded assertions (as usual) and ran with them (as usual). And are still out there running with them. Shameless.

I did not provide any misinformation. I provided a news item from the AP. If it proves to be wrong, that is not my fault. As for describing it as a terrorist attempt, I am citing the authorities in NY, who know more about these kinds of things than either you or I.

 

[sr71plt]

I did not provide any misinformation. I provided a news item from the AP. If it proves to be wrong, that is not my fault. As for describing it as a terrorist attempt, I am citing the authorities in NY, who know more about these kinds of things than either you or I.

Christ allmighty, Box. The AP report doesn't say a bomb went off. Your headline slug does say that. You provided misinformation right off the top. Are you really that stupid?

(And please note that AP DID NOT characterize the bombing attempt as terrorist related. They quoted Kelly as asserting that. But AP has smarts that neither you nor Kelly have. They didn't assert that themselves.)

 

[Boxlicker101]

Originally Posted by Boxlicker101
I did not provide any misinformation. I provided a news item from the AP. If it proves to be wrong, that is not my fault. As for describing it as a terrorist attempt, I am citing the authorities in NY, who know more about these kinds of things than either you or I.

Christ allmighty, Box. The AP report doesn't say a bomb went off. Your headline slug does say that. You provided misinformation right off the top. Are you really that stupid?

(And please note that AP DID NOT characterize the bombing attempt as terrorist related. They quoted Kelly as asserting that. But AP has smarts that neither you nor Kelly have. They didn't assert that themselves.)

I did call the thread "Terrorist Bombing in New York." I suppose I could have called it "Terrorist Bombing Attempt..." but I think the distinction is splitting hairs. After all, how often do we hear about "The attempted shoe bomber" or "The attempted Christmas Eve bomber."

The AP report does refer to a "terror attack" which is just a different way of saying it was an attack by terrorists. To repeat what I said in the bolded portion of my previous post, I am just citing what was said by authorities. Neither Kelly nor Browne actually uses words such as "terror" but Kelly's description of the perpetrator's apparent intention leaves no doubt as to what he considers the incident to be.

ETA: The article is changing periodically, but here is the first paragraph from the AP as of now.

NEW YORK (AP) — Police investigating a terror attack that could have set off a deadly fireball in Times Square focused Sunday on finding a man who was videotaped shedding his shirt near the SUV where the bomb was found. They also were trying to determine whether more than 100 pounds of a fertilizer-like substance in the vehicle could have made the crude device even more devastating.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I did not provide any misinformation. I provided a news item from the AP. If it proves to be wrong, that is not my fault. As for describing it as a terrorist attempt, I am citing the authorities in NY, who know more about these kinds of things than either you or I.

For crissakes, have the common decency to be embarrassed. The AP might be wrong, but you are certainly, provably, wrong.

You described the new item incorrectly, you described what happened incorrectly, you misquoted the authorities, and here you are trying to double-talk instead of simply admitting the fact.

 

[Boxlicker101]

For crissakes, have the common decency to be embarrassed. The AP might be wrong, but you are certainly, provably, wrong.

You described the new item incorrectly, you described what happened incorrectly, you misquoted the authorities, and here you are trying to double-talk instead of simply admitting the fact.

What do I have to be embarassed about? I refer to a terrorist bombing rather than an attempted terrorist bombing. Big deal.

The item is about a car bomb being left in Times Square, and the AP refers to it as a terror attack. I cited a police spokesman as saying it was a terror attack, because he described it as such. He did not use the word "terror" but his description is clearly that of a terror attack. As for "misquoting him," I did not make any direct quote, merely paraphrased what he said. If you can look at my sentences and his sentences and find a difference in meaning between them, go ahead.

 

[jomar]

The AP just reported the "failed" bombing was a Republican ploy to make Obama look soft on terrorism and assure victory in the mid-terms.

 

[3113]

Rest Easy. They say it wasn't the Taliban

The latest:

There is no evidence of a Taliban link to a failed bomb found in a sport utility vehicle parked in Times Square, New York City Police Commissioner Ray Kelly said Sunday. Kelly said officers were on their way to a town in Pennsylvania to talk to a tourist who may have recorded a bombing suspect on his video camera. The commissioner said the possible suspect, a man in his 40s, was captured on security camera video in the area as he took off a dark shirt to reveal a red T-shirt underneath. He said police may be able to release that video in the coming days.

The Pakistani Taliban claimed responsibility for the attempted attack, a statement on an Islamist website said Sunday. The statement said the plot to detonate the explosives early Saturday evening was to avenge the killing of "Muslim martyrs." The speaker mentions U.S. drone strikes in Pakistani tribal areas that target Taliban leaders hiding there and the "abduction, torture and humiliation" of Aaria Siddiqui.

Street vendor Duane Jackson, who looked inside the suspicious vehicle before police arrived, talks to reporters on Sunday. (Seth Wenig/The Associated Press)
Investigators disarmed what the mayor described as an "amateurish" but potentially powerful bomb in the SUV after a T-shirt vendor saw smoke coming from the vehicle on 45th Street and alerted police.

Heavily armed police began to evacuate the area around 6:30 p.m. ET and zoomed in on the Nissan Pathfinder, which had its engine running and hazard lights flashing. Investigators removed three propane tanks, fireworks, two full 19-litre gasoline containers and two clocks with batteries, electrical wire and other components from the vehicle, Kelly said. According to police, the licence plates on the Nissan came from another vehicle in a junkyard.

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, appearing Sunday on NBC's Meet the Press, said investigators have also recovered fingerprints....

From Here.