posted on Sep, 21 2015 @ 09:27 PM
originally posted by: Annee
No its not.
You've created your own little conspiracy on an assumption.
It proves nothing of what this kids intentions were.
What assumption? I speak only of the kid's ACTIONS, and use a factual description of the assembled device, to deduce logically my conclusions. No
assumptions involved. You can't read the kid's mind and neither can I.
The kid didn't have an assignment to construct any project. Further, the kid was told by his shop teacher it looked suspicious, to put it away, and
take it back home, but instead, he rejected the instructions of a school official
, connected the battery and set the alarm to go off in the
middle of a class.
Absolute PROOF of his intentions requires an investigation. And even then, his INTENTIONS can only be inferred by his ACTIONS. Logic dictates this, so
you demanding absolute proof of the kid's intentions from some poster on a message board borders on insanity. However, this thread contains quite a
bit of factual information that is more than enough to allege intentions in a court of law. That is ALL we can do as mortal humans. So I consider that
statement (i.e. no proof of intentions) to lack serious logic, as it is at the same time true AND misleading.
However, his ACTIONS can be judged as illegal (hoax bomb), and his ACTIONS were not those of someone that was simply showing off their electronics
skill, and it could be judged that his actions were instead intended to demonstrate that he could be a threat if he wanted to be. At a minimum we
cannot have school kids disrupting classes by bringing in 'assemblies' that can be mistaken for dangerous objects. Treating this kid equal to others
and disregarding religion, he is still entitled to an investigation, and should be subject to suspension or expulsion. That is the only way to treat
him as equal as everyone else. Would you agree? If not, why not?
I have created no conspiracy here, the topic of the thread is that Richard Dawkins was duped by Obama's statements of this kid's advanced engineering
skills, and then Dawkins found the actual evidence shows no such thing. You have yet to provide anything more than unsubstantiated assumptions about
the kid's innocence, which are quite disproven thru the kid's own actions at the school, presented as facts. You need to present more than 'did so,
did not' to disprove the premise of this thread.