Your posts are shit in this thread, so for my own sanity I’m not engaging you, SlackerInc. I just want clarification from the group: Do you lower goalposts when moving them or do you move them closer? I mean, we’re talking about football, right? Doesn’t that make this a distance issue rather than a height issue?
As to the OP: Teens are not known for their mad skillz at thinking things through. School officials and police should be.
More relevantly, his small “wrongs” are in no way evidence of a greater plan to hoax, defraud or otherwise manipulate the school or police, with or without the aid of his father in the name of “activism”.
That would be the choice and decision of the people running those events. The idea that he’ll be highlighted is pure conjecture on your part. If the organizers don’t think the clock is really all that great, the obvious thing to do would be to keep the invitation, let the kid have a good time at the event but otherwise show him no special treatment.
As I said earlier, if this was a hoax or plot by his father, I find it hard to believe that they wouldn’t drop the $30 to buy a DIY clock project or a Raspberry Pi or some other device that would both look “like a bomb” (as much as this one did anyway) and have the added benefit of credibility in the “it was just a project” department. For being sociological masterminds who risk sending their kids to prison, they’re not very good at this.
Just the risk of a felony charge following you around for a lifetime, if not imprisonment on terrorism charges. Penny ante stuff, really.
You call designing a clock that can be carried around in a suitecase brilliant? That young twit deserved an introduction to adult American insanity.
Trolling? Some kind of curmudgeon act? Deliberate ignorance regarding how young people learn things?
First of all, you are assuming they knew making a hoax bomb was a felony. I’d say this is an unwarranted assumption: before this hit the news, I’d bet the house that the majority of Americans did not know this.
Secondly, how was there any risk of this as long as the item in question is nothing more than a disassembled clock, and Ahmed is warned never to call it anything but a clock? I mean, the argument is so bipolar here: it was obviously just a clock and he never said otherwise, but there’s no way they could have secretly intended to stir up an overreaction because there was grave risk of a felony charge sticking? Huh? (ETA: This then would suggest that since Ahmed admits he put a cord around it to make it look less suspicious, he was obviously deranged to bring it to school at all, if the risk of going to the slammer for a long stretch was as great as you’re indicating.)
Some master activists these are, huh? I’d bet that just about anyone would guess that bringing a hoax bomb into a school would lead to serious charges.
So, again, this plan relies entirely on the school and police flipping out and hassling the kid because they’re racist but not racist enough to say “he called it a bomb when questioned in our office” or “We think he had enough intent to press charges and take this to court” or whatever.
You’re welcome to your pet theories but they don’t sound credible at all when questioned. The best responses you can give is to ignore questions or essentially say “Nuh uh… doesn’t count, that’d never happen!”
You still haven’t addressed why they’d use an old clock rather than a $30 kit if this whole thing relies on Ahmed calling it an experiment. Your theory honestly doesn’t sound plausible at all and you’re just grasping at straws rather than admitting to it.
And I genuinely think it is many on the other side who look increasingly to be grasping at straws to explain away a lot of the discrepancies that have come out since the original, oh-so-tidy news item swept through social (and non-social) media.
That’s nice. It doesn’t make your theories sound any more plausible. I mean, there’s people still trying to prove that the moon landing is fake but it remains on them to present a credible theory that holds up to inspection.
I find it particularly amusing that this family was strident enough in their activism to create this “hoax” to get a reaction from racist police but apparently had no knowledge of cases of false evidence, coerced confessions and other law enforcement transgressions over the years. “We’re going to send the Muslim boy to school with a fake bomb but there’s no risk at all that the racist police will find a way to make the charges stick because they legitimately think they caught themselves a little Muslim terrorist!” And, hey, when playing for stakes like a magazine interview, potentially having your son tried on terrorism charges is nothing.
Well, my science teacher in grade 5 asked us to think of an improvement on the stuff we use every day. I glued a cheap digital watch on to the handle bar of my bike. Not terribly brilliant, I know, but harmless in all aspects. And I already knew of terrorists back then, thanks to Time and Reader’s Digest.
Did the bike explode?
And so what exactly? What does this have to do with what happened here?
Slacker, the hole in your conspiracy theory is that there is no proof what-so-ever of a Roswell rejuvenation treatment, so until you can prove that the boy had undergone one, there is no support for your belief that he brought down the twin towers with one of his clocks.
No, no, no. The plan relied on the clock to be both a hoax bomb and not a hoax bomb at the very same time. It’s Schroedinger’s Clock, dude.
Hohum. Was something of a tinkerer myself at that age. He made a clock. It’s a very flimsy setup. You can see in the picture. But he didn’t have time to make a suitable housing. Normally, a free standing set up on a square of plywood or cardboard is done, but it was too flimsy and bullies might damage it. So he thought dad’s old suite case was perfect: sturdy, comes with a carrying handle. He was too young to fully appreciate what he just made. And any science teacher will tell anyone it’s just a clock in a suite case. Night folks.
Again I ask. So what?
No, because there’s still not a single thread of actual evidence that this was anything other than what it appeared to be. All there is, still, is innuendo and guesses based on opinions about the family.
Another excluded middle. There is no ironclad evidence, but there is more than “innuendo and guesses based on opinions”. Circumstantial evidence is still evidence; and it is incontrovertible at this point that Ahmed has been dishonest about what he did. The extent of the dishonesty, we cannot be sure about and probably will never know.
*“Mr. Hutz, we’ve been in here for four hours. Do you have any evidence at all?”
“Well, Your Honor. We’ve plenty of hearsay and conjecture. Those are kinds of evidence…” *
Other than using 14-year old hyperbole (“invention”), there’s no evidence of dishonesty on Ahmed’s part. And calling anything “circumstantial evidence” for a planned hoax is hyperbole in itself – it’s based on nothing more than your feelings about the family.
It’s even better than Schrodinger’s cat: the ‘bomb’ keeps on being both long after the briefcase was opened. 