Was Trump behind latest NY Bombings?

[Baz]

Just had a crazy thought.....

Was Donald Trump behind the latest failed(ish) bombings in NY & NJ?

Obviously I'm not suggesting he did anything personally but I'm sure he knows a man or two that could arrange a Muslim immigrant to take the hit.

seems he is claiming he predicted it...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/19/donald-trump-boasts-he-predicted-new-york-bombing-and-calls-for/

Would certainly help drum up support for some of his crazy policies.

 

[DoonTheSlope]

I reckon it was Clinton who was involved

[ParisInAKilt]

CIA . . .

[Ally Bongo]

1 hour ago, Baz said:

Just had a crazy thought.....

Was Donald Trump behind the latest failed(ish) bombings in NY & NJ?

Obviously I'm not suggesting he did anything personally but I'm sure he knows a man or two that could arrange a Muslim immigrant to take the hit.

seems he is claiming he predicted it...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/19/donald-trump-boasts-he-predicted-new-york-bombing-and-calls-for/

Would certainly help drum up support for some of his crazy policies.

 

Nope 

Predicting that there will be atrocities in the current climate isnt rocket science especially in the USA where there is easier access to weaponry.

Not saying that if he gets into power he will not get up to such skullduggery to push through policy but not at the moment.

If you want to get deeper into it then it is more likely that those who wish a global jihad will want Trumpy in charge to bring that around quicker so will increase these things anyway 

 

[Guest faircity]

7 hours ago, Baz said:

Just had a crazy thought.....

Was Donald Trump behind the latest failed(ish) bombings in NY & NJ?

Obviously I'm not suggesting he did anything personally but I'm sure he knows a man or two that could arrange a Muslim immigrant to take the hit.

seems he is claiming he predicted it...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/19/donald-trump-boasts-he-predicted-new-york-bombing-and-calls-for/

Would certainly help drum up support for some of his crazy policies.

 

No.

[Ally Bongo]

[Alibi]

My wife and I both independently considered the same possibility.  Wouldn't be the first time that lies and sleight of hand had been used to win a vote - remember when every time the SNP vote increased, there would be some ludicrous "explosion" or alleged "terrorist" incident to shove the voters back on message?

[kumnio]

3 hours ago, Ally Bongo said:

It might be crass, but that is very good, and will hit home with a lot of Americans.

However, Americans tend to obese fckers, so Id imagine that a lot would take the handful.

[Baz]

12 hours ago, faircity said:

No.

Just seems strange..

1. No group has claimed it. ISIS would claim a fart in a lift if it made the headlines.

2. Bombs were fairly pish almost like they were designed not to do too much damage. What exactly were the targets?

 

 

[Ally Bongo]

1 hour ago, Baz said:

 

2. Bombs were fairly pish almost like they were designed not to do too much damage. What exactly were the targets?

 

 

The unexploded pressure cooker bomb would have done real damage if it had went off 

They cause far more damage than pipe bombs

In both its whatever materials they put in them that does the dirty - nuts, bolts, nails etc

Either going off in a crowded area will cause casualties - the pressure cooker version causing far more

[hunchy]

Personally I think this was more along the lines of a lone wolf type with a grudge. Possible someone who wanted to prove something to his higher ups. A messenger boy who thought he was better than the fighters. From the little I have seen he didn't really have an escape plan and has come across as being nieve. Could be wrong just my gut feeling

[thplinth]

I would guess there will have been some shadowy character encouraging and assisting them to 'do something' and it will turn out to be someone connected to the FBI or other 'US security' agency. 

[Brassrubber]

Lewinsky will be fingered is my guess 

[Padre Andrew]

On Tuesday, September 20, 2016 at 9:00 AM, Ally Bongo said:

FFS, is that really what they've come to?

 

[DoonTheSlope]

On 20 September 2016 at 10:00 AM, Ally Bongo said:

Excellent analogy 

[Ally Bongo]

1 hour ago, DoonTheSlope said:

Excellent analogy 

If you are comparing skittles to people then yeah ...............................

[thplinth]

Ohhhh yes it would be like comparing people to apples in a barrel and saying you will find the odd bad one. Shocking stuff unless of course you are not mental...

[ParisInAKilt]

Backed up by any data? 

[thplinth]

Jeezo mass immigration from a country overrun by terrorists. How would anyone think a few bad apples were coming in...

You know maybe the burden of proof that this is all cool should be on you after all it you risking other people lives if you are wrong.

Where are your studies proving this is all safe then? Seriously let's have them. Otherwise ram it. Or is it only you bedwetters who expect to cross examine and demand evidence. 

[Ally Bongo]

2 hours ago, thplinth said:

Jeezo mass immigration from a country overrun by terrorists. How would anyone think a few bad apples were coming in...

You know maybe the burden of proof that this is all cool should be on you after all it you risking other people lives if you are wrong.

Where are your studies proving this is all safe then? Seriously let's have them. Otherwise ram it. Or is it only you bedwetters who expect to cross examine and demand evidence. 

Islam is an idea - Muslims are a people

You are allowed to hate ideas - You are not allowed to hate people for their ideas

The advert would have been far better if it went along the lines of say - if i had a bowl of skittles and i told you that 3 would kill you because they believe some ludicrous shit would you take a handful

Islamaphobia is not racist but Trump's advert kinda is IMO 

 

 

[ParisInAKilt]

2 hours ago, thplinth said:

Jeezo mass immigration from a country overrun by terrorists. How would anyone think a few bad apples were coming in...

You know maybe the burden of proof that this is all cool should be on you after all it you risking other people lives if you are wrong.

Where are your studies proving this is all safe then? Seriously let's have them. Otherwise ram it. Or is it only you bedwetters who expect to cross examine and demand evidence. 

Oft. 

Well I believe there's several checks done over 18 months - 2 years before a Syrian refugee is even considered for migration to the US. Is it completely safe? Doubtful but nothing in life is. Treating people displaced because of war with respect and dignnitiy is a risk every country should be taking, especially when this is a result of wars started by western countries. 

[phart]

18 hours ago, thplinth said:

Jeezo mass immigration from a country overrun by terrorists. How would anyone think a few bad apples were coming in...

You know maybe the burden of proof that this is all cool should be on you after all it you risking other people lives if you are wrong.

Where are your studies proving this is all safe then? Seriously let's have them. Otherwise ram it. Or is it only you bedwetters who expect to cross examine and demand evidence. 

Since it's America i'll post the hoops they need to jump through to get asylum, normally an 18-24 month vetting process. Of course if your consulate in Jakarta is issuing 9/11 hijackers with visas then you're fecked as happened in 9/11.

There have been 750,000 refugees since 9/11. 2 have been charged with terrorist activities relating to Al Qeada. No domestic terror issues.

The problem are discussed in the link.

"The vetting begins with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugee, which determines who counts as a refugee, who should be resettled (about 1 percent) and which countries would take them. This alone can take four to 10 months.

If the UNHCR refers refugees to the United States, they then face scrutiny from federal intelligence and security agencies.

Their names, biographical information and fingerprints are run through federal terrorism and criminal databases. Meanwhile, the refugees are interviewed by Department of Homeland Security officials. If approved, they then undergo a medical screening, a match with sponsor agencies, "cultural orientation" classes and one final security clearance.

Syrian refugees in particular must clear one additional hurdle. Their documents are placed under extra scrutiny and cross-referenced with classified and unclassified information.

The process typically takes one to two years or longer and happens before a refuge ever steps onto American soil. Ultimately, says the State Department, about half are approved, and there’s no real precedent of a terrorist slipping in through the vetting system."

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jun/13/donald-trump/wrong-donald-trump-says-theres-no-system-vet-refug/

Other info from a foreign policy magazine i read.

[Grim Jim]

5 hours ago, phart said:

...

There have been 750,000 refugees since 9/11. 2 have been charged with terrorist activities relating to Al Qeada. No domestic terror issues.

...

Thanks for the data.   Somehow, I suspected the Skittles stats were a wee bit iffy.

[phart]

9 hours ago, Grim Jim said:

Thanks for the data.   Somehow, I suspected the Skittles stats were a wee bit iffy.

The 9/11 hijackers got through the net cause someone in one office was fast tracking them, then the CIA were not informing the FBI they were in the country.

Another reason why people don't believe the official narrative.

[thplinth]

18 hours ago, phart said:

Since it's America i'll post the hoops they need to jump through to get asylum, normally an 18-24 month vetting process. Of course if your consulate in Jakarta is issuing 9/11 hijackers with visas then you're fecked as happened in 9/11.

There have been 750,000 refugees since 9/11. 2 have been charged with terrorist activities relating to Al Qeada. No domestic terror issues.

The problem are discussed in the link.

"The vetting begins with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugee, which determines who counts as a refugee, who should be resettled (about 1 percent) and which countries would take them. This alone can take four to 10 months.

If the UNHCR refers refugees to the United States, they then face scrutiny from federal intelligence and security agencies.

Their names, biographical information and fingerprints are run through federal terrorism and criminal databases. Meanwhile, the refugees are interviewed by Department of Homeland Security officials. If approved, they then undergo a medical screening, a match with sponsor agencies, "cultural orientation" classes and one final security clearance.

Syrian refugees in particular must clear one additional hurdle. Their documents are placed under extra scrutiny and cross-referenced with classified and unclassified information.

The process typically takes one to two years or longer and happens before a refuge ever steps onto American soil. Ultimately, says the State Department, about half are approved, and there’s no real precedent of a terrorist slipping in through the vetting system."

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jun/13/donald-trump/wrong-donald-trump-says-theres-no-system-vet-refug/

Other info from a foreign policy magazine i read.

Let's not get into is terrorism / al qeada / ISIS 'real'. They are all a con job but I am so bored of discussing it especially on here.

I think the bad apple analogy was fine and is just another example of people jumping on anything Trump (or Team) says and trying to amplify it into something racist or sexist or homophobic thing blah blah blah... 

And as for America they are taking in all people from what I read. I'd say Europe is the place where this bad apple 'theory' is going to now be tested in the real word. We will see what happens. Personally I am not concerned about 'terrorism'. I think a real number is being done on Europe right now very deliberately and this is only part way through what they have in store for us. I am just sitting back to see what happens next.