Look, you mental midget, it doesn’t take genius to figure out that when you take a fake bomb into a big city airport, you are risking your life, and if you did it on purpose, you deserve to be punished.
Your endless list of excuses all seem to hinge on the fact the this fake bomb looked too fake for anyone not to immediately dismiss as an obvious joke. You follow this with vicious derision of the security forces who made the arrest.
I don’t accept that, and find it a very dangerous way of thinking, in this post 9/11 world.
I know she was just a goofy college kid...now. But at first blush, I don’t accept that any reasonable, non-retarded person should instantly assume the most innocent motive.
You focus on the flashing lights, the fact that it doesn’t conform to your idea of what an IED should look like, and you take this idea and run with it, automatically condemning anyone who took a more cautious approach.
You defend this idiot child as if she were your own, and you were protecting her from ravening wolves, instead of seeing the obvious problems with her behavior.
I think you have some other agenda at work here, and I suspect it has something to do with a core hatred of authority figures in general.
You see, your mind swings on a hinge. Either she is a terrorist or she was pulling a stunt. There is a third choice - she was innocent of an intentional act to do whatever it is y'all think she was intentionally doing and the whole thing was caused by supposed professionals jumping to a conclusion about what it must be, which turned out to be mistaken.
You see, as so-called professionals, they cannot believe that they duped themselves, and so if they were duped it must have been intentional on her part.
Training, intelligence and humility in the face of being wrong are better solutions than arrogance.
It isn't just the flashing lights. It is the whole thing. Since almost anyone who knows what electronic circuits look like can tell you what it is, they can also tell you what it isn't. It isn't an IED, and it is not that it doesn't conform to my idea of an IED. It is that it isn't an IED. An explosive has to have certain components which this quite evidently doesn't have. For instance it needs to have explosives. This doesn't.
No one needs to jump to a conclusion that she was innocent. After stopping her, not finding explosives, and understanding that they had misled themselves into believing what wasn't a bomb was a bomb, they could just conclude that because she was innocent she was innocent.
A tautology is a tautology, and 9/11 did not change the nature of logic. What is dangerous is to think that 9/11 somehow changed the moral landscape and that not not innocent is somehow different from innocent.
What I deride is that the security forces, having deluded themselves about the nature of her activities could not just apologise and let her go, but had to press charges.
9/11 does not excuse that. It really does not excuse turning ourselves into moral monsters.
Earth to jim35 - it wasn't a fake bomb.
Actually, my problem is different and concerns itself with the complete mediocrity of what passes for critical thinking in the US which you demonstrate to a "t."
Your problem starts with your reverence for the expertise of the security forces, state troopers in this case, at the airport even though these guys clearly did not have much training on the subject, but because they have a badge and a gun you revere them. I don't want to deride them. They have a job to do and work hard and it sucks dealing with the public.
But let me clue you in on a little secret. There are genuine experts on the subject of bombs and explosives here in the US. But they have advanced degrees (I mean PhD leve l for the most part) in chemistry and physics and work at laboratories where they deal with high explosives, its formulation, its behaviour all day every day.
The result of this intellectual mediocrity is that you deride a girl who built something that doens't look like a bomb because it wasn't intended to be one, and think she must be dumb to think she could dupe the really smart guys who stand security by building something that was not a bomb and not meant to look like a bomb when they know that it was meant to look like a bomb even though they don't know it doesn't look like a bomb. That one might reach a different set of conclusions from the fact that smart people go to MIT and tend not to become state troopers seems to be rejected by you completely out of hand.
Let me give you a clue. There are some things you have to go to some place like MIT to understand because some things are really hard and you need to be really smart to understand. Despite your smarminess, some of those things are vital to our national security, much more important to our national security than the posturing around here about 9/11 being an excuse for shooting American girls on sight before questions are asked because you never know when the craze of becoming jihadists will hit teenage American girls, even though there is no evidence that it has.
And I don't believe that this goof-ball should go to prison because she didn't yet know how really dumb our security folks an their enablers like you can be.